I see no value in atheism

[Willamena]

However choosing to define atheism by "not theist" is defining the terms according to the majority. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. That rarely happens on RF (or at least rarely admitted). Just weigh the other sides argument and explain why they are not valid.

RF is hardly the majority, and I fully hope that sense and logic might rule out someday.

This new way of defining things (and I'm a child of the 70's, so I can call a method of the 90's "new") will have its day, and die.

 

[McBell]

No..I mean it as a legitimate question....do you believe in atheism?.

You will have to define your terms.
What do you mean by "believe in atheism"?

I have no problem with the definition...I only dispute the calling of non-atheists, atheists, even though they do not believe in atheism.

Yet you ignore the part that clearly says a lack of belief is all that is required.
in fact, for some reason you have to have a belief involved.
One wonders why that is?
Is it that in your black and white fantasy world you cannot fathom that someone may very well lack a belief in god without actively believing it does not exist?

Seems to me that is a problem you have, not me.

A non-atheist is called a theist.
because to not be an atheist means belief in a deity.
Yet you claim one has to actively deny god in order to be an atheist.
thus you are, in fact, ignoring the very definition of atheist.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutely. Anyone who has not been exposed to theism would "lack a belief in God" (as they don't have that belief),

...to you. Not to them. You're not arbiter of their world, just yours.

and would, thus, accurately be classified as "atheists" (among other things). I think that is necessary according to the definition of the term. Anyone who is not a "theist" is an "atheist". There are, of course, countless subcategories of each, which is why I feel like they must be extremely general.

The definition of atheist based off the definition of theist would inevitably fail for just that reason--how could we tell who are theists? It should rightly be based off of atheism, and theist off of theism. Then we could tell immediately.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You will have to define your terms.
What do you mean by "believe in atheism"?

Do you accept the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds?

Fyi..I am using the definition of atheism as quoted here...Aims and Purposes | American Atheists

 

[Willamena]

My logic is that, by definition, no decision is necessary for atheism. Merely the lack of belief,

How is that lack not a negated belief? "Is something missing here?" "Ummm.... yup!"

The negated belief is just the belief negated.

The word "lack", meaning to not have/hold, seems to unambiguously show this. Remember, this is not "lacking" in the derogatory sense.

We hold beliefs that require something to hold. To not hold requires something to not hold.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure where you got that analogy from, as both of those terms are not limited in the same way at all. my argument rests on the simple fact that atheism is a general term, requiring only a lack of belief. communism and capitalism are not even on comparable footing when speaking of definitions. that is merely a straw man argument. further, you've provided no reasoning for your claims about my logic. please humor me and do so specifically so I can understand what you're talking about. I'm going to discuss so please be respectful enough to explain your argument. and irrelevant analogies will not cut it.

What is the logic in your classifying someone who does not believe in atheism, and would not agree to being one if you personally asked them, an atheist?

 

[Willamena]

Fair enough, but they still don't believe actively that God does not exist.

Can I get some clarification about the difference between the act of believing and actively believing?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

by the way, it's very simple. The term atheism does not require a decision to be made. it is extremely clear of the word lack.

But doesn't it matter that the person you would classify an atheist, would not agree to being one if you personally asked them? Surely reality must have some place in your sense of logic? Here is the definition from American Atheists..Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

 

[outhouse]

What is the logic in your classifying someone who does not believe in atheism,

Fallacy.

It is not something one believes in.


What is the logic in your classifying someone who does not believe in air?

 

[Willamena]

Fallacy.

It is not something one believes in.


What is the logic in your classifying someone who does not believe in air?

Are you denying that there is anything we cannot believe in?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fallacy.

It is not something one believes in.

What is the logic in your classifying someone who does not believe in air?

I am not classifying someone who does not believe in air....in fact I am not classifying anyone...you otoh are classifying people who do not believe in atheism as defined by America Atheists, as atheists...Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Aims and Purposes | American Atheists

 

[ArtieE]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Why does the guy on the island not lack the belief simply because it is not available to him? Let's say the guy grew up on the island alone. Eventhough he is not familiar with TV, wouldn't he still "lack" a TV?

Not according to Willamena. In order to not have a tv he would have to know what a tv is. I know what a tv is and can say that he doesn't have one, but according to Willamena that doesn't seem to be enough. As I understand her, for him to not have a tv, he would have to know what a tv is.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh..err. ....and here was I thinking you had an affirmative belief that God did not exist....haha

An affirmative belief in a non-existence? LOL. Your grammar is shocking. How can a belief in a non existence be an affirmative? You write like a random word generator.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An affirmative belief in a non-existence? LOL. Your grammar is shocking. How can a belief in a non existence be an affirmative? You write like a random word generator.

Stop picking on me you cruel scholar Bunyip

But ok....you've lost me good...

 

[Bunyip]

Stop picking on me you cruel scholar Bunyip

But ok....you've lost me good...

No worries buddy. Sorry.

 

[JoStories]

Another false dichotomy.
You rather fancy them, don't you?

You keep making the claim that atheists HAVE to reject god.
That is plain flat out not true.

I understand your whole worldview may depend upon your belief that atheists have to deny god.
However, the fact of the matter is that an atheist is ALSO someone with out a belief in god.

An atheist does not have to deny god in order to be an atheist.

Agreed. However it can't be said that they haven't heard of the concept. Except in very rare circumstances.

 

[JoStories]

Fair enough, but they still don't believe actively that God does not exist.

Again, I agree but it can't be said they don't know of the concept. To me, that implies some kind of a choice in the matter, even if it is simple rejection.

 

[Bunyip]

Agreed. However it can't be said that they haven't heard of the concept. Except in very rare circumstances.

Well no, for every single atheist will be atheist towards gods they are unaware of. All atheists are atheist towards gods they are unaware of and those that they are. Whilst theists are also atheist towards all gods they are unaware of and theist in relation to only one god.

 

[JoStories]

You are right, I was raised as an atheist, with no focus on religion. I did not know such a thing existed until I was six or seven, it seemed to me that it was just clubs that people belonged to and went to on the weekends when we went to the beach (I thought I had a much better deal). I can still remember when someone tried to explain religion to me, it made me giggle and my response was, basically, "You must be kidding ... I'm too old for Santa Claus tales."

Agreed but you still, at that point, knew of the concept. And you rejected it out of hand as not making sense to you. You heard of God and for you, it was exactly like Santa Claus and you then reject the idea. How does that not imply a choice here?

 

[Bunyip]

Agreed but you still, at that point, knew of the concept. And you rejected it out of hand as not making sense to you. You heard of God and for you, it was exactly like Santa Claus and you then reject the idea. How does that not imply a choice here?

Because continuing to believe in Santa, when you know it is an invention is not a choice. We do not choose what we believe. We either believe or we do not.