How I Feel About Atheists

[Koldo]

Or, you have no idea what atheism, is.

This came off as quite patronizing. According to your standards, you are saying that nearly every person that bears the 'atheist' label has no idea what 'Atheism' is.

But this is of no consequence to my point. My point is that if we use your definition, then 'Atheism' only applies to a incredibly small number of people. Do you know of anyone that would qualify as an atheist to you ?

Also, theism is the acceptance of a broad range of possibility, while atheism is the rejection of that whole category of possibility. Thus, there are many possible philosophical expressions of theism (God, gods, divine spirits, metaphysical realms and influences, etc.), while there is only one possible philosophical expression of atheism (negation).

What 'range of possibility' is a person required to accept for you to consider him/her to be theist ?
For instance, if a Catholic individual rejects the possibility of certain pantheons like Greek and Nordic, is he still a theist ?

 

[Willamena]

Of course there is. Scientists have just discovered forms of energy and matter that have been completely unknown to us until now. And we have no idea how these new forms of matter and energy relate to the rest of the physical universe. Our senses did not detect these. Even our machinery didn't detect them. In fact, we aren't really certain that they exist , except that mathematically, we deduced that they must exist.

How is maths a failing of our senses?

 

[Mister Silver]

Bad religion is not all religion, and religion is not all theism. Bad religion comprises only a fraction of all religion, and an even smaller fraction of theism. Yet you presume that theism is comprised of nothing but bad religion, and then accuse theists of not being intellectually noble based on your own ignoramce.

Can you see why one might hold your atheism in disregard?

Nope.

 

[atanu]

There is no paradox. Existence simply cannot have a cause.
You have two cases: either there is an infinite sequences of causes going backwards, in which case existence of that sequence is not caused.
OR you have something that exists and is uncaused. In that case, the existence of that thing isn't caused.
So, existence itself cannot be caused. The notion is self-contradictory.

Please allow me to state a view:

There is an uncaused, which can have an unmanifest state and another manifest state (that we know as the Universe). So, universe is not caused in one sense yet can be said to have been caused from another perspective.

And that is demonstrably false. Most quantum events are not caused.

I think this is not strictly true. Collapse of wave function may be said to be caused.

YMMV.

 

[Koldo]

Please allow me to state a view:

There is an uncaused, which can have an unmanifest state and another manifest state (that we know as the Universe). So, universe is not caused in one sense yet can be said to have been caused from another perspective.

This doesn't contradict what he said. Existence itself is still uncaused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does TOE stipulate blind unguided evolution?

Yes, effectively.

Edit: it implies a blind, unguided process. I suppose it doesn't exclude the possibility of something guiding it at the outset, anticipating what the unguided processes would do after that point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yea, I have studied biology in college as well. That means nothing to me. Some of the most brilliant scientists in biology still believe that a higher intelligence may exist. In fact, their very studies led them to consider this a possibility.

And there are plenty of brilliant scientists that don't believe some higher intelligence may exist, whose studies led them away from the possibility of a higher intelligence. So what?

Maybe this is why it should come down to evidence, rather than personal opinion.

 

[atanu]

This doesn't contradict what he said. Existence itself is still uncaused.

It depends on what exactly is meant by ‘caused’.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No , my point about looking in the mirror was that some people, like myself, just find the fact that we exist and are such incredibly designed beings as possible evidence of a higher intelligence.
I don't want you to change any of your views, that's not for me to want. I'm just having a discussion of ideas with you.
I only responded to you initially because it sounded like you were saying that it is a fact or truth that there is no possibility of a higher intelligence or Intelligent Designer. Maybe I misunderstood.
I was just saying that there is a possibility but , of course, no one can prove that there is or isn't or state unequivocally that there is or isn't.
Just curious, do you contemplate how living matter came into being from non-living matter or how the universe suddenly began from nothing ?
Or do you find these questions inconsequential since they are unknowable ?

Anything is possible. I think the more pertinent question would be ... Is it probable?

 

[PureX]

This came off as quite patronizing. According to your standards, you are saying that nearly every person that bears the 'atheist' label has no idea what 'Atheism' is.

Most self-proclaimed atheists I find are atheists, in that they believe the proposition that no gods or divine realms exist. But many of them don't want to be exposed as having no logical or evidential reason for holding this position, especially when they are so quick to denigrate theists for that very same reason. So they feign "unbelief" and claim they are "undecided" because the theists cannot offer them proof, when they clearly are not undecided and they just as clearly accept as fact that no gods exist. The whole reason you and others here are fighting so hard to label skepticism as atheism is so you can maintain this "unbelief" nonsense, and void the obvious hypocrisy of accusing theists of the same lack of logic or evidence that accompanies your own position.

My point is that if we use your definition, then 'Atheism' only applies to a incredibly small number of people. Do you know of anyone that would qualify as an atheist to you?

Yes. But a lot of them lie to themselves, and to us, about it. So that it LOOKS like a very small number (those being the honest ones), but in fact their numbers are much greater.

What 'range of possibility' is a person required to accept for you to consider him/her to be theist?

That's irrelevant to the definition, as is the degree of certainty one applies to their chosen position (theism or atheism). Because these terms are not defined by what or how intently we "believe". They are defined by the acceptance or rejection of the proposed possibility. If you reject the possibility that God, gods, divine metaphysical entities or divine metaphysical realms of influence, exist, then you are an atheist. How strenuously you reject this, or how certain you presume yourself to be about your choice, is irrelevant to the options, and to their respective word-labels.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheism is the rejection of the possibility that any gods exist.

So you have a problem with Strong Atheism, as expected.

You know what? That's fine.
When debating the merits of Strong Atheism you make several valid points. You, as many before you, are requiring that an impossible knowledge claim made by certain types of Atheists be supported with substantiating material, knowing full well that it cannot be done. There's nothing wrong with that. I agree with your tactic. I do the same thing with Theists, knowing full well that they can't properly support their claims. I even go so far as to agree with many of your conclusions about the frailty of Strong Atheism epistemologically.

Well done. Hip-hip. Cheerio. Round of applause and all that...

HOWEVER...You would be wise to accept and understand that Strong Atheism only pertains to a very limited number of people who would otherwise call themselves atheists, as you've been told here numerous times. The fact that certain atheists don't meet your particular requirements or definitions for that title does not, in any way, detract from the fact that they are still atheists. They just aren't your type of atheists, so you've gone so far as to say that they aren't even really atheists at all...

How is that much different from the No True Scotsman fallacy?
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

You've redefined atheists to a small pigeon-holed example, made claims about those within the pigeon-hole, and then reapplied that label to a broad range of individuals regardless of their own input... How can anyone properly argue with you if you're only using your own definitions and rejecting all others? You're confining all conversation to a very narrow understanding and not allowing for any other input. THAT's why you think no one has corrected you in over 30 pages of debating. You're purposefully disregarding differing (and more accepted) definitions.

Like I said of your position before:
"If you could only see things my way, then you'd know I'm right..."

If your premise is wrong, what does that say about any of the conclusions you've made based on that premise?

Theism accepts the possibility that some expression of a 'divine realm or being' exists, and atheism then rejects that possibility. What individuals choose to believe or not believe is irrelevant to the definition of these positions as we humans can hold to several different positions and beliefs, simultaneously, and even when they contradict each other. So what humans believe can't logically define anything. And dictionaries do not define reality. They only define the words we use to convey our various mixed up and contradictory ideas about reality. "Theism" and "atheism" are philosophical terms, defining the acceptance and the rejection of ideological truth-paradigms based the idea of a transcendent metaphysical spirit "being", or realm of existence.

So says PureX, authority of his worldview and nothing else...

Listen, man. You don't get to reject accepted definitions and supplant them with your own because it's convenient. That's not at all how conversations work.

You're free to express how you see things, sure. But you aren't free to expect others to accept the labels that you put on them. And you certainly should not expect whole conversations to be dictated by the way you want things to be, or by the preferences that you have towards your own position.

I don't get to tell Christians what they believe.
They get to do that.

I don't get to tell Hindus what they believe.
They get to do that.

I don't get to tell Yoga instructors how Yoga is supposed to work and I don't get to tell Mathematicians what certain Mathematical terms mean... (Choose whatever example you like. The fact of the matter never changes.)

Likewise, you don't get to tell Atheists what atheists believe or disbelieve - they get to do that.

If you can't abide by simple rules of conversation, then it shouldn't be expected that you'll be abiding by any simple rules of logic either, reducing any points that you might have into unnecessary noise.

 

[Koldo]

Most self-proclaimed atheists I find are atheists, in that they believe the proposition that no gods or divine realms exist. But many of them don't want to be exposed as having no logical or evidential reason for holding this position, especially when they are so quick to denigrate theists for that very same reason. So they feign "unbelief" and claim they are "undecided" because the theists cannot offer them proof, when they clearly are not undecided and they just as clearly accept as fact that no gods exist.

You are confusing two distinct things here: believing no gods exist and rejecting the possibility that gods exist.
One can believe no gods exist and yet not reject the possibility that they do.
Using the definitions you have provided in a former post such a person would be described by you as theist.
Don't you agree?

The whole reason you and others here are fighting so hard to label skepticism as atheism is so you can maintain this "unbelief" nonsense, and void the obvious hypocrisy of accusing theists of the same lack of logic or evidence that accompanies your own position.

Skepticism is not atheism. You can be atheist and yet not skeptical. But you can also be skeptical and atheist.
Unless, of course, we use your definitions, which still need further clarification.

Yes. But a lot of them lie to themselves, and to us, about it. So that it LOOKS like a very small number (those being the honest ones), but in fact their numbers are much greater.
That's irrelevant to the definition, as is the degree of certainty one applies to their chosen position (theism or atheism). Because these terms are not defined by what or how intently we "believe". They are defined by the acceptance or rejection of the proposed possibility. If you reject the possibility that God, gods, divine metaphysical entities or divine metaphysical realms of influence, exist, then you are an atheist. How strenuously you reject this, or how certain you presume yourself to be about your choice, is irrelevant to the options, and to their respective word-labels.

But what I am talking about is exactly the 'rejection of the proposed possibility'. A Catholic individual can easily reject the proposed possibility that Greek and/or Nordic gods exist. Does that make him any less of a theist ?

 

[PureX]

So you have a problem with Strong Atheism, as expected.

You know what? That's fine.
When debating the merits of Strong Atheism you make several valid points. You, as many before you, are requiring that an impossible knowledge claim made by certain types of Atheists be supported with substantiating material, knowing full well that it cannot be done. There's nothing wrong with that. I agree with your tactic. I do the same thing with Theists, knowing full well that they can't properly support their claims. I even go so far as to agree with many of your conclusions about the frailty of Strong Atheism epistemologically.

Well done. Hip-hip. Cheerio. Round of applause and all that...

HOWEVER...You would be wise to accept and understand that Strong Atheism only pertains to a very limited number of people ...

There is no "strong and weak" atheism. There are only strong and weak atheists. The strong atheists being those that are honest and forthright about their assumed position that no gods or divine realms exist. And are willing to say so, and defend their position by whatever reasoning they follow. And the weak atheists being those who lie about what atheism is (calling it "Unbelief") so that they won't have to admit that they cannot defend it even as they are busy attacking theists and theism for the same inability. And I would be neither wise nor will I accept their deliberate mischaracterizations of the terms just so they can continue to snipe at theism and theists while hiding their own hypocrisy behind it. If they doubt their own atheism then they should not claim to be atheists, and instead just admit that they are undetermined skeptics, maybe leaning this way or that. If they don't doubt their atheism then they should be willing and able to admit to their atheism and defend it, without hiding behind "unbelief".

I am not going to change the meaning of the term "atheism" just to accommodate a bunch of philosophical sissies.

How is that much different from the No True Scotsman fallacy?

No true Scotsman would lie about being Scottish so he could avoid having to defend Scotland. And no Scotsman would accept anyone who did that as one of his own. Sometimes the "no true Scotsman" meme is not a fallacy. It's just a fact.

You've redefined atheists to a small pigeon-holed example, made claims about those within the pigeon-hole, and then reapplied that label to a broad range of individuals regardless of their own input... How can anyone properly argue with you if you're only using your own definitions and rejecting all others?

It's very easy, all they have to do is explain, using logic and reason, why their definitions are not exactly what I claim they are: lies designed to allow them to hide from their own hypocrisy. So far, in hundreds of posts, not ONE has been able to do so, or has really even tried. All they've managed to do is appeal to dictionary definitions (which merely record their abuse of the term because they abuse it so often), and claim that if lying about how atheistic they are makes them not atheists, then hardly anyone is an atheist. Which is exactly as absurd as it sounds.

You're confining all conversation to a very narrow understanding and not allowing for any other input. THAT's why you think no one has corrected you in over 30 pages of debating. You're purposefully disregarding differing (and more accepted) definitions.

Find me these logical, reasonable explanations of why atheism should include undetermined skepticism. Please. Because all I've seen so far is "The dictionary says so" and, "All my weak friends say so". And these are neither logical nor reasonable arguments.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no "strong and weak" atheism. There are only strong and weak atheists. The strong theists being those that are honest and forthright about their assumed position that no gods or divine realms exist. And are willing to say so, and defend their position by whatever reasoning they follow. And the weak atheists being those who lie about what atheism is (calling it "Unbelief") so that they won't have to admit that they cannot defend it even as they are busy attacking theists and theism for the same inability. And I would be neither wise nor will I accept their deliberate mischaracterizations of the terms just so they can continue to snipe at theism and theists while hiding their own hypocrisy behind it. If they doubt their own atheism then they should not claim to be atheists, and admit that they are just undetermined skeptics. If they don't doubt their atheism then they should be willing be able to admit their atheism and defend it, without hiding behind "unbelief".

I am not going to change the meaning of the term "atheism" just to accommodate a bunch of philosophical sissies.
No true Scotsman would lie about being Scottish so he could avoid having to defend Scotland. And no Scotsman would accept anyone who did that as one of his own. Sometimes the "no true Scotsman" meme is not a fallacy. It's the truth.
It's very easy, all they have to do is explain, using logic and reason, why their definitions are not exactly what I claim they are: lies designed to allow them to hide them from their own hypocrisy. So far, in hundreds of posts, not ONE has been able to do so, or has really even tried. All they've managed to do is appeal to dictionary definitions (which merely record their abuse of the term because they abuse it so often), and claim that if lying about how atheistic they are makes them not atheists, then hardly anyone is an atheist. Which is exactly as absurd as it sounds.
Find me these logical, reasonable explanations of why atheism should include undetermined skepticism. Please. Because all I've seen so far is "The dictionary says so" and "All my weak friends say so". And these are neither logical nor reasonable arguments.

OK, what would you call someone who allows for the possibility of a deity, but does not believe such actually exist?

 

[LuisDantas]

And there are plenty of brilliant scientists that don't believe some higher intelligence may exist, whose studies led them away from the possibility of a higher intelligence. So what?

Maybe this is why it should come down to evidence, rather than personal opinion.

And then there is the matter of actual relevance.

Theism does not and should not have actual effect on scientific knowledge, even if it somehow turns out to be justified. Reality is what it is.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

That's not a reason to believe that an intelligent designer exists.



I haven't heard any ideas that don't involve a uncaused first cause. Can you suggest one?



I've also never seen any research from any scientific field that supports a belief in an intelligent designer.



Brilliant in a scientific area doesn't mean brilliant about gods.



If their conclusion is that an intelligent designer exists, it is unjustified. It is faith based.



Polymath already explained why any first cause must itself exist uncaused whether you imagine something having existed infinitely back in time or coming into existence uncaused. It seems that one of those must be correct, and neither allows for reality to have a cause. Those might be difficult ideas to grasp. Even those that propose the existence of a god as the cause of our universe consider that god to exist uncaused.



I don't know that they do, but it doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they know and can demonstrate. It only matters how they would rebut the argument made. If the rebuttal were compelling, then they've demonstrated that what they believe is worth taking seriously,

This is the essence of skepticism and where it departs from faith. The skeptic doesn't take the opinions of even top scientists on faith. Some scientists and the body of science collectively have given us evidence that they are correct. They are believed because of the evidence that their words were useful, not because of the words alone.

So why would I care what any number of scientists think about gods, even if they agreed with me?

 

[McBell]

There is no "strong and weak" atheism. There are only strong and weak atheists. The strong theists being those that are honest and forthright about their assumed position that no gods or divine realms exist. And are willing to say so, and defend their position by whatever reasoning they follow. And the weak atheists being those who lie about what atheism is (calling it "Unbelief") so that they won't have to admit that they cannot defend it even as they are busy attacking theists and theism for the same inability. And I would be neither wise nor will I accept their deliberate mischaracterizations of the terms just so they can continue to snipe at theism and theists while hiding their own hypocrisy behind it. If they doubt their own atheism then they should not claim to be atheists, and instead just admit that they are undetermined skeptics, maybe leaning this way or that. If they don't doubt their atheism then they should be willing and able to admit their to atheism and defend it, without hiding behind "unbelief".

I am not going to change the meaning of the term "atheism" just to accommodate a bunch of philosophical sissies.
No true Scotsman would lie about being Scottish so he could avoid having to defend Scotland. And no Scotsman would accept anyone who did that as one of his own. Sometimes the "no true Scotsman" meme is not a fallacy. It's the a fact.
It's very easy, all they have to do is explain, using logic and reason, why their definitions are not exactly what I claim they are: lies designed to allow them to hide from their own hypocrisy. So far, in hundreds of posts, not ONE has been able to do so, or has really even tried. All they've managed to do is appeal to dictionary definitions (which merely record their abuse of the term because they abuse it so often), and claim that if lying about how atheistic they are makes them not atheists, then hardly anyone is an atheist. Which is exactly as absurd as it sounds.
Find me these logical, reasonable explanations of why atheism should include undetermined skepticism. Please. Because all I've seen so far is "The dictionary says so" and, "All my weak friends say so". And these are neither logical nor reasonable arguments.

I am an atheist because theists have not convinced me a deity exists.

 

[PureX]

I am an atheist because theists have not convinced me a deity exists.

Was that their duty?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Can you show evidence of something that exists that doesn't have a cause ?
And I speak nothing of gods , I speak of the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
And even if science doesn't present current evidence or understanding of a first cause, it doesn't mean there isn't one , it means that science hasn't solved that problem yet. And it is a problem because everything that science has accounted for has a cause. And if you're gonna bring up virtual particles not having a cause, I don't believe that either. Science may not have figured out the cause as of yet. There was a time when virtual particles weren't even conceived of, but now they are accepted as scientific evidence, correct ? Well, how do yo know there will not be future scientific findings that show there is a cause of virtual particles ? It is logical to believe that everything requires a cause because everything we know of does have a cause. So back to my original question, can you show evidence of anything in existence that doesn't have a cause ? Even if something does appear to not have a cause, how can you prove that there isn't a cause that we haven't discovered or gained knowledge of yet ? Scientific discoveries evolve over time and we continuously discover new evidence of things. So are we done discovering everything ? I don't think so. So I wouldn't be so quick to negate possibilities just because you don't have the evidence right now.

 

[PureX]

OK, what would you call someone who allows for the possibility of a deity, but does not believe such actually exist?

At best, confused.