I see no value in atheism

[McBell]

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.

Again, you have chosen a specific definition and ignore the rest.

 

[McBell]

I am not classifying someone who does not believe in air....in fact I am not classifying anyone...

You are classifying people.
In fact, you are trying to classify atheists who are not part of American Atheist Group as not atheists..

you otoh are classifying people who do not believe in atheism as defined by America Atheists, as atheists..

First, American Atheists is not the end all be all of atheism.
Second, not all atheists agree with the definition of atheist provided by American Atheists.
Third, the very definition you keep repeating like some ace in the hole (which it is not) even says "MAY"
Fourth, you are still trying real hard to flat out ignore the fact that all that is needed to be an atheist is a lack of belief in deities.

 

[McBell]

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

so what?
All it takes to be an atheist is the lack of a belief in deities.
It matters not if they have never heard of the concept.
If they lack belief in a deity, they are an atheist.

 

[McBell]

It means that someone who has never heard of atheism, and therefore can not possibly believe the general aims of atheism as defined by Amercian Atheists 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

The atheists here on this thread are claiming such people who have never been exposed to the concept of theism/god, and who naturally therefore do not believe in atheism as defined above, are still considered atheists because they are not active theists....

It means that someone is not a member of the group American Atheists.
So unless it is your claim that the atheist group American Atheists is the be all end all of atheism (which would be wrong), you have no argument.

 

[McBell]

And that lack of belief is based on something. It doesn't just pop magically in to a person's mind from nowhere.

what are you talking about?

Do you have a belief in Mriswiths?
If not, what is that lack of belief based on?

No offense to anybody in particular, but honestly, so many forum atheists like to pose themselves as these laser sharp reasoners, but you have to explain the simplest things to them over and over and over again, in thread after thread after thread.

rotflmao
Sad that some theists cannot get it through their heads that ignoring definitions of atheist they do not like does not make said definitions go away.

 

[McBell]

No, they're just an authority.

Says who?

Not me.

They are nothing but a group of atheists who have come together with a common agenda.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The God claim is a proposal about the ultimate nature of all reality.

It's just another claim by us limited humans, in this case a claim with no evidence to support it.

 

[Nakosis]

It's just another claim by us limited humans, in this case a claim with no evidence to support it.

Kind of up to each, individually what they accept as evidence. Just as you of course have the right to reject anything as evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry to mistake you for an atheist...

According to what religious or philosophical authority, does an affirmative belief in atheism ay an atheist be considered a logical fallacy?

"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

It says "may be". I am not claiming that it can't be used in that way, but since we are speaking to who CAN BE ACCURATELY classified as an "atheist". Thus, the most general definition is what must be used. As long as a person fits into the general definition of "atheism", simply lacking belief in the existence of God, they can accurately be classified as atheist. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

 

[leibowde84]

He would be lacking belief in nothing ...which, if you think about it, means believing in everything, i.e. the world. That I believe.


The eliminative stance, right. But we don't lack something unless we've something to lack; we can't acknowledge, "There is no TV," unless TVs exists for us.

I disagree. I dont think something has to exist for us subjectively for us to "lack" it. Why "for us"? Why isn't existing in reality enough? Why must the guy be given the option?

 

[Willamena]

An "authority" requires some sort of administrative power or expertise. American Atheists isn't an administrator of atheism, and as atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God and has no principles, tenets, doctrine or even shared philosophy, you can't really be an "expert" on atheism.

The Bible is an authority, it has no administrative power. I think your definition is a bit narrow.

You can choose not to kowtow to them as an authority, it's no skin off my nose. But denying it serves no purpose.

And what is that?

It's the people who "do" atheism.

 

[Willamena]

It says "may be". I am not claiming that it can't be used in that way, but since we are speaking to who CAN BE ACCURATELY classified as an "atheist". Thus, the most general definition is what must be used. As long as a person fits into the general definition of "atheism", simply lacking belief in the existence of God, they can accurately be classified as atheist. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

I don't agree, because the most general claim is that they don't believe in god or gods.

 

[Typist]

It's just another claim by us limited humans, in this case a claim with no evidence to support it.

Yes. Both theism and atheism lack sufficient evidence to sustain belief. Nobody has come close to proving anything.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. I dont think something has to exist for us subjectively for us to "lack" it. Why "for us"? Why isn't existing in reality enough? Why must the guy be given the option?

Three things are necessary for a thing to be reasonably addressed in thought and speech: first, for it to be acknowledged in its identity; second, for it, in its identity, to be acknowledged as the thing and not as something else (at the same time and in the same respect); and lastly for it "to be or not to be," and there is no question about that.

So, how can the thing that we have no knowledge of, no reason to suspect exists, be acknowledged? Existence "is or is not" (true or false) only for things that we know. Things we cannot know can have no truth value.

 

[outhouse]

Yes. Both theism and atheism lack sufficient evidence to sustain belief. Nobody has come close to proving anything.

I find hat not true. Your the one with no evidence here, not me. I have sufficient evidence, while you have none.


You refuse to debate the evidence, because you know only man has written and created deities in the past.

 

[ArtieE]

Right, thank you, atheism is based on the lack of evidence.

No, that is agnosticism.

1) The atheist applies their human reason to the question.

No, that would be rationalists. Atheists are under no obligation to be rationalists.

2) By doing so they are assuming human reason is binding on the question.

No, that is still rationalists.

3) Where is the proof that this is true?

Rationalists.

 

[Typist]

All this phoney baloney cleverness, so typical of forum atheism.

1) Anybody who has heard of God, but doesn't believe, doesn't believe due to their reference to human reason.

2) And the qualifications of human reason, in regards to this specific question about the ultimate nature of everything, are unproven.

That's all there is to it guys, and no amount of definitional dancing can change it. You can huff and puff and do the hokey pokey little logic dances all day long, and when you're done you'll still be stuck in a faith based ideology.

Which isn't necessarily bad, if one can simply accept one's faith based ideology for what it is, like theists do. I'm not against faith based ideologies, I'm against trying to call it something else.

What's driving all this logic dancing is that forum atheists are typically desperate to pose themselves as superior to theists, and desperately desiring such a thing just doesn't make it true.

 

[Sapiens]

All this phoney baloney cleverness, so typical of forum atheism.

1) Anybody who has heard of God, but doesn't believe, doesn't believe due to their reference to human reason.

You say that but you make no case for it. I testify that, in my experience, your claim is wrong. It should be clear with the past existence of thousands of religions that today everyone takes an atheists stand towards that you are wrong since you are, in fact, an atheist too, I just carry it one itsy-bitsy religion farther than you do.

2) And the qualifications of human reason, in regards to this specific question about the ultimate nature of everything, are unproven.

That's all there is to it guys, and no amount of definitional dancing can change it. You can huff and puff and do the hokey pokey little logic dances all day long, and when you're done you'll still be stuck in a faith based ideology.

Which isn't necessarily bad, if one can simply accept one's faith based ideology for what it is, like theists do. I'm not against faith based ideologies, I'm against trying to call it something else.

What's driving all this logic dancing is that forum atheists are typically desperate to pose themselves as superior to theists, and desperately desiring such a thing just doesn't make it true.

Clearly you feel, deep down, that atheists are superior, why else would you be struggling so hard to make a case that even if you could make it, would accomplish nothing more than raising religion up to an equal position as atheism?

 

[leibowde84]

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


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.

It's not a judgment, it's a simple fact. They "lack" a belief in the existence of God because they don't believe in God. No matter who looks at it, they will come to the same conclusion. The guy "lacks" belief.

 

[Curious George]

But, self-identifying atheists are proud of the fact that they don't take "leaps of faith" in believing things without sufficient evidence, which would include believing that God does not exist without sufficient evidence. I think it is beneficial to make sure that the term "atheist" is defined more liberally, just as "theism" is.

And it is a fair point to say that you think the term should be defined in a liberal or broad way to be inclusive. Your reasoning-that atheists suggest they don't take leaps of faith is questionable. We all take leaps of faith.
What is sufficient evidence? Is it definite? It can hardly be definite in all cases. Sufficient include definite, but not in all cases. Otherwise we wouldn't simply call it sufficient we would use more assertive terms. Where there is not definitive proof there is usually a leap of faith. Sometimes that leap is small, other times that leap is large.
With many (strong) atheists, this leap of faith is predicated on the lack of evidence after sufficient search. (There is that word sufficient again, I need to remember to get back to that). Certainly, the absence of evidence is not definitive proof. There is always some stone unturned, some gap not filled, or some dark corner unlit. Yet, at some point we must move forward. People do this all the time. Imagine you lost your keys. You search a room, you look under the cushions, you check the table , etc. At some point you decide the key is not in that room. Do you have definitive proof? No. No matter how thoroughly you search there is always some possibility the key is in the room. But after you you are convinced that you have dwindled the possibility of the key being in the room to some level in relation to the key not being in the room, you move on.

And here, my friend, is where we find sufficient. Sufficient is the subjective amount of evidence you need to make that leap of faith. We can take a collective subjectivity in an effort to put forward some standard of sufficient. But, let's be honest, reasonable minds can disagree on many issues.