I see no value in atheism

[outhouse]

That's all there is to it guys, and no amount of definitional dancing can change it.

You constantly refuse to address the tough questions, regarding your deity of choice. Man creates mythology ? yes Is it factual? yes.


Has man factually created deities in the past using mythology and rhetoric? yes.


Do you believe in the thousands of other deities man has created? probably not. That makes you an atheist to some degree.

 

[JoStories]

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.

So, if I am reading you correctly, my belief in God is not choice, it's ....what? In the absence of overt evidence, what else can it be but belief? You see to imply that there is no choice. If that is true, why are there so many religious denominations and faiths? If it's not choice, it should be overtly ubiquitous.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

First of all, I am a theist, and I was one of the posters who started this discussion. Your sentiment was already fraudulently directed at me personally, which shows that there is a common confusion among some theists that, once a theist, one must always "fight for God". I disagree, as this is a discussion forum, so any feelings of hostility toward atheism that you hold would be better off forgotten while commenting here. Again, I believe in God, but I will never stop searching for a deeper meaning of the truth, hopefully casting away some of the false assumptions so many theists, like me, hold subconciously.

But, to your comment ... Nope. Just going by the meaning of the word "atheism". We aren't discussing "fath" in general, as that is not the requirement for theism. We are discussing "belief in God", and the "lack" of that belief. I agree that "faith" is part of both. I never said otherwise, and I'm pretty sure that no one else claimed that either. There is no certainty in this world, and no absolutes ... at least, we have not figured that out either way as of yet.

That being said, "atheism" is not necessarily the adherence to reason. It does not speak to that in its most general accepted form, the general parent category for all that simply lack a belief in the existence of God. There is no active belief required for atheism, and to attack it generally as being something more than that is either dishonest or ignorant. "Strong Atheism" is another story, as it requires an active belief that God does not (cannot) exist. That is a high standard ... I agree. Most atheists do not claim that God does not and/or cannot exist. They simply haven't been convinced either way as of yet and, at least to them, the default position is to remain undecided "until further notice".

 

[Nakosis]

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.

We can choose what to believe based on whatever reasoning. Maybe though we can't choose what to disbelieve. When faced with experience or knowledge gain through some means that the truth that we based that belief on is false.

I believe something based on whatever information I have about it. I determine or it is proven to me that information is false, I can no longer honestly support the belief.

Isn't that what we do? Chip away at the truth of the information which is supporting the belief which has been chosen?

Once we have found cause to disbelieve can we ignore that?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

For example. My girlfriend now is someone who lacks belief in God. Not because she believes that God does not exist, but because she was raised by two atheist parents who did not really introduce her to religion. She went to public schools, and is an amazing, beautiful person and mom (has a 6 year old son all on her own ... both doing great). She asked me yesterday if I didn't mind discussing the Bible and other religious beliefs in Catholicism, and, of course, I was delighted. It was the first time I had ever heard it in my life, but, although she was familiar with what God was as an idea and had known some of the stories revolving around Jesus, she could not get her mind around why people would buy into such unbelievable stories written in times when they were so common. But, since she had so many great Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. friends growing up, she thought that her parents were probably wrong. Being a rebelious teenager she felt exactly the same way. She is always searching for further understanding, but hasn't been nearly convinced yet. If she wasn't open to both possibilities of atheism and theism, she would not be continuing her search. She would certainly not ask her new boyfriend about religious beliefs right away if she wasn't open to both.

Now, she identifies and has identified as an atheist for her entire life. But, she still has not taken a stance on God's existence. Part of her thinks that God does exist and she just has to keep searching for a connection, the other part of her is unable to get her mind around the myth-like stories associated with the most common systems of belief.

 

[leibowde84]

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

The act of believing in something is actively believing always. Lacking a belief in something is not necessarily active, as it merely represents an absence of belief ... a.k.a., passive.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you seriously suggesting that the American Atheists organization are the de facto deciders of what constitutes an atheist, what atheists should believe, and what should be considered atheistic?

Are you anti American Atheist?

 

[JoStories]

I don't consider beliefs a matter of choice, strictly speaking. Once you have seen a hundred sunrises, you cannot simply "choose" to believe that the sun won't rise on a particular day. Beliefs are responses to observations and a consequence of our understanding. Equally, lacking a belief isn't a matter of choice, neither for the explicit or implicit atheist. I do not "choose" to find the reasons given for God's existence unconvincing, I am merely not convinced by them as a consequence of my understanding and my personal critical approach and skepticism. Likewise, implicit atheists reject the concept not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of simply not having the concept put forward to them for them to accept it.

I continue to disagree. Acceptance or rejection requires choice. I choice to beleive in God only because I've had enough experiences that I can't explain that make me think it's something more. If I found evidence for those experiences, I would have to readjust my thoughts and beliefs.

 

[JoStories]

That is still an odd, slanted way of putting it, though. Ambitious, unsupported ideas with lack of evidence should be rejected as a matter of course.

Would you call my belief that there are no watermellons in my refrigerator a choice?

If you truly want to see some sort of active choice in the matter of theism and atheism, it seems to me that it is necessary to make it in the form of theism being the choice. Specifically, the choice to believe without proper evidence.



Because they (we) lack the choice, I am willing to bet.

We are rarely given much choice on the matter between being supportive by omission or instead being, as you put it, "very vocal".



Ah, but is that even the case? I don't think so. Refusing to be bullied into belief (or pretense of belief) is just not much of a choice - or even much of a rejection, frankly. It is more like self-defense really.



Until then, it is very much a stretch to say that one is choosing not to believe in that idea.

Besides, this is an imperfect parallel. Life on other planets is basically meant to be barely detectable, while the existence of god is generally described as very consequential indeed.

Don't you think that finding intelligent life on other planets would be consequential? I certainly do. It would change our world paradigm in ways that I could only dare to imagine. Other than that, you reject the idea of God for lack of evidence. That is still choice. If tomorrow overt, proof positive was presented to you, what then?

 

[JoStories]

Are you seriously suggesting that the American Atheists organization are the de facto deciders of what constitutes an atheist, what atheists should believe, and what should be considered atheistic?

What else would you call them or what they do or stand for? If atheists are non choice and the de facto position, why is there an organization at all? The point would seem to be moot, IMO.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

The point is not the AA definition...but the actual reality of what atheism is about.. Do you believe in atheism?

 

[JoStories]

Are we? That is some pretty fancy wording for "being rational". But atheism does not even need any rational justification at all, either. It is just an absence.



There is no need for any proof, but in certain circunstances it can be produced, usually in the form of the argument from evil or of contradictions in the alleged deities.



And with a very self-evident knack for inventing fictional beings, a point that is very relevant for this discussion. As is the equally obvious knack for unhealthy beliefs and emotional attachments.



Not always, as it turns out. The idea that a God must be connected to some attempt at explanation for everything that is is far from universal.

Also, calling it a "proposal" is quite a bit generous, being the non-answer that it actually is. There are probably languages out there where "deity" and "mystery" share the same word. We should consider reintroducing one such word and adopting it for religious practice, come to think of it. It would be healthy, regenerative.



That is a very good argument for doubting any claims about a creator god, you realize. Particularly those considered creators of existence itself.



Just about the same odds, I agree. Except that I don't think I have ever learned of anyone who thinks of human reason as "binding" in a supernatural sense. That would be odd.

Reason is pragmatically necessary and far more reliable than the alternative. It is not a supernatural belief, though.



You must have misunderstood what reason is and what it means, to say such a thing.



Because it is wrong.

You might think it's wrong but I don't. I think it's spot on. I guess, again, we have to agree to disagree.

 

[JoStories]

No they aren't. They're just assuming that human reasoning is a tool they have at their disposal with which to address the question. They don't have to see it as "binding", whatever that means.


Reasoning, broadly speaking, is a process whereby we reach a conclusion via the application of formal logic to a question, and adjust our views and conclusions based on what is indicated by the available facts. In other words, reasoning is when we reach a conclusion based on facts, rather than interpreting facts to fit a conclusion.

The God claim is any claim about the existence of any entity, spirit or force that can accurately be described as a God (i.e: a supernatural, intelligent agency responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of the Universe or some aspect of the Universe).


Human reasoning has lead to realisation of a great many objective truths about our Universe. To dismiss it merely because it hasn't reached nigh-impossible heights is the definition of short-sightedness.


Good thing you're completely exempt from that then, eh? I don't doubt you have the ability to raise above us mere mortal humans with your vastly superior intellect, but unfortunately the rest of us simply have to make do with what we have.


Except for the people who don't make assumptions based on faith, and withhold belief until such a time as they have a good reason not to. But, lemme guess, you're one of these miraculous, special people who rise above this "basic logic" thing, right?


The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to and patronize both. Well done!

Well, I don't patronize or belittle anyone. And I also don't see either position as superior. They are just two sides of the argument, IMO.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

No I do not...I've explained it explicitly many times to you but you stick to the atheist activist approved definition that was meant to distort reality in the way it has...and atheists use it against logical reality... That you have fallen for it...a supposed theist..is quite amazing given you seem reasonably intelligent. You do come across though as an atheist activist...do you mind if I ask what religious forums you usually post on?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Sure, it "may be" defined that way, but that is not the general meaning of the term, which is far less cumbersome. Further, the atheists opinion on the matter does not play a part. We are talking about classifications by definition in this context. Those that "lack belief in the existence of God" or, in other words, do not hold the belief that God exists, are "atheist" by definition. That is my argument.

 

[leibowde84]

No I do not...I've explained it explicitly many times to you but you stick to the atheist activist approved definition that was meant to distort reality in the way it has...and atheists use it against logical reality... That you have fallen for it...a supposed theist..is quite amazing given you seem reasonably intelligent. You do come across though as an atheist activist...do you mind if I ask what religious forums you usually post on?

1. You don't know me, and the fact that you think you do know me simply because of my comments on a religious debate forum is laughable.
2. I'll take this as a win. You, yet again, failed completely in providing a counter-argument and reverted to personal insults about my gullibility. This is most often a sign that one's opponent has no way to refute your point.

By the way, I am going by the dictionary, not the "Atheist Activist approved definition". The general meaning of the term atheist includes all those that merely lack a belief in the existence of God. Deal with it!

 

[Curious George]

The act of believing in something is actively believing always. Lacking a belief in something is not necessarily active, as it merely represents an absence of belief ... a.k.a., passive.

This is semantics again. The lack of belief that you are referring to comes from one of two places: 1) the inability to form a belief 2) the belief that there is a possibility.

In the latter case, one still has a belief. In the former case the person is irrelevant to any discussion about the truth of the matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. You don't know me, and the fact that you think you do know me simply because of my comments on a religious debate forum is laughable.
2. I'll take this as a win. You, yet again, failed completely in providing a counter-argument and reverted to personal insults about my gullibility. This is most often a sign that one's opponent has no way to refute your point.

By the way, I am going by the dictionary, not the "Atheist Activist approved definition". The general meaning of the term atheist includes all those that merely lack a belief in the existence of God. Deal with it!

Good...provide a dictionary definition of 'atheist' and we will see....

...and btw...the slight you feel is perhaps due to the cognitive dissonance I suspect is present in a theist who is is as proactive an any proactive atheist....I would still like to see some evidence of your devoted God belief on a religious thread...I'm waiting....

 

[leibowde84]

This is semantics again. The lack of belief that you are referring to comes from one of two places: 1) the inability to form a belief 2) the belief that there is a possibility.

In the latter case, one still has a belief. In the former case the person is irrelevant to any discussion about the truth of the matter.

Are you saying that latter "holds the belief that God exists"? Because, again, that is the only "belief" that is relevant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ROTFLMAO

I do not subscribe to the group calling them selves American Atheists.
Nor do I recognize them as having anything more than a group specific anything other than a lack of belief in deities.

Just as there are numerous groups of theists, there are numerous groups of atheists.

Fine,,,but what do you disagree with in the American Atheists definition? What sort of atheism do you believe in?