I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

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....

Lol. Why would on earth would that be necessary? Is there a rule I'm not aware of.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Do you disagree with the definition? Do you believe in a different atheism form American Atheist members?

 

[leibowde84]

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....

atheist: definition of atheist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

It explicitly includes those that merely "lack belief in god or gods".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Lol. Why would on earth would that be necessary? Is there a rule I'm not aware of.

No...it's just that you were on my case that I mistook you, a theist, for an atheist and I took you for your word and apologized.. Now I would just like to see some evidence...is that a problem?

...and don't forget the dictionary definition?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

My you are thread bombing with your repetitive responses to my providing the American Atheist definition of atheism....do you agree with it? Do you believe in American Atheist brand of atheism?

 

[Curious George]

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

I am saying that the latter holds a belief. A belief which is just as unevidenced as the other two. Thus, lack of belief for that person is just as "active" as the others.

 

[Curious George]

I am saying that the latter holds a belief. A belief which is just as unevidenced as the other two. Thus, lack of belief for that person is just as "active" as the others.

Or as "evidenced" your choice.

 

[Nakosis]

I am saying that the latter holds a belief. A belief which is just as unevidenced as the other two. Thus, lack of belief for that person is just as "active" as the others.

Yes of course an atheist while lacking a belief in any concept of God might consider some form of God is possible. This doesn't matter with regard to the definition.

This might be better understood as an agnostic. An agnostic would be a type of atheist. A person can have lots of beliefs and still be an atheist. The only requirement is lacking a belief in any of the concepts of God. Any other beliefs or non-beliefs is irrelevant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

atheist: definition of atheist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

It explicitly includes those that merely "lack belief in god or gods".

Precisely...correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the prefix 'a' of atheist, means 'not' yes?

Not what? Not theism yes? The concept of the word atheism is precise in its meaning...not theism.

It does not mean not religion, for some religions like Taoism and Buddhism do not have gods...they non theistic.. Therefore atheism does not mean not belief in non theistic religions...

Now furthermore...to lack a belief in God does not mean an absence of belief, for if there were a real absence in belief, the person would not know what God was in the first place in order to reject the belief in God... In reality, a person must be cognizant of the concept of God to be able to reject it....and it then becomes a belief on the part of an atheist to hold to that rejection. That is what a belief is,,,the holding to a mental memory of a position... Atheists believe that God does not exist...matching precisely the Oxford dictionary definition.. People who do not know of the concept of God on the other hand, unlike atheists, have a real and total absence of a belief in God and therefore equally have a real and total absence of belief in the rejection of belief in God...they can never logically or honestly be ever classified as atheists...

All atheists have a belief about God not existing...simple reality..

 

[Curious George]

Yes of course an atheist while lacking a belief in any concept of God might consider some form of God is possible. This doesn't matter with regard to the definition.

This might be better understood as an agnostic. An agnostic would be a type of atheist. A person can have lots of beliefs and still be an atheist. The only requirement is lacking a belief in any of the concepts of God. Any other beliefs or non-beliefs is irrelevant.

Hmm, I believe you have not read all of my posts.

Saying this definition with authority does not necessarily make it so. In fact, that definition has been put into question in this thread on multiple occasions. The question is then, are there reasons to support such a definition. Some have pointed to history, but this is not so, historically an atheist was what some people would call "a strong" atheist. Some people have pointed to "logic." However this is not true as the negation of god exists is God does not exist. Some people have pointed to linguistics (a usually means without) however this is not clear in the case of atheism, see an earlier post where I quote fellow f2f legion. Some people have pointed to contemporary dictionaries, however, there are other contemporary dictionaries with the stricter definition (that some people reserve for strong atheists). See quagmire's posts on the topic. Some people have pointed to contemporary usage, however judging by the number of threads and disagreement on the definition, this is not really clear cut either.

So, if you are going to jump in and explain what atheism is, please feel free to reason why atheism is or should be as you say.

 

[Willamena]

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.

The belief, for him, can have no truth value, but I wouldn't call that a "lack." Lack implies that he needs some belief.

 

[Typist]

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'm not a theist, and apologize for any frustrations I may have expressed. But, um, I'm guessing some more frustration outbursts are coming...

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.

I was hoping to discuss the nature of the meaning that is sought by those engaging this debate, and posted on that in reply to you earlier.

We are discussing "belief in God", and the "lack" of that belief. I agree that "faith" is part of both.

As I said earlier, theists generally understand faith is involved on all sides of the debate, whereas atheists generally don't.

I never said otherwise, and I'm pretty sure that no one else claimed that either.

So the atheists here agree they are operating from faith? Is that what you mean?

There is no certainty in this world, and no absolutes ... at least, we have not figured that out either way as of yet.

Yes, literally thousands of years of this inquiry have not generated an answer to these issues. This raises the question of whether it is rational to continue pursuing such a process, when there is so little evidence it is going anywhere. Forum atheists are always going on about evidence, but this is one piece of crucial evidence that they are eager to ignore. Apparently you are too?

That being said, "atheism" is not necessarily the adherence to reason.

I apologize for my impatience, which is my problem, but honestly, all the definitional dancing which dominates threads like this is so incredibly tiresome and unproductive.

What would be productive would be to try to understand the fundamental human needs which religion is trying to address, and then look for additional ways to meet those needs.

There is no active belief required for atheism,

Yes, atheism IS a belief, a belief is required. This is the simplest thing, but it has to be endlessly explained, again and again and again and again. Atheism does not pop in to one's mind from nowhere. Why is that so incredibly difficult for members to grasp???? All these discussions get permanently stalled on such simple issues which a child of 12 could understand.

Seriously all, you really should ask yourself if you have any business discussing these topics at all. Perhaps sports would be a better choice? Politics perhaps?

"Strong Atheism" is another story, as it requires an active belief that God does not (cannot) exist.

No, no, no and no. Strong atheism is not another story, it's just an exaggerated version of mild atheism. That's it, no other difference.

All atheism (except that of those who've never heard of god) depends entirely on the UNPROVEN FAITH BASED BELIEF that human reason is qualified to consider questions about the ultimate nature of everything.

Again, no amount of definitional dancing around the room and doing the logic hokey pokey changes this a bit. All of that is just wasted typing, nothing more.

 

[Typist]

You constantly refuse to address the tough questions, regarding your deity of choice.

There are no tough questions being presented here, and I don't have a deity of choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm, I believe you have not read all of my posts.

Saying this definition with authority does not necessarily make it so. In fact, that definition has been put into question in this thread on multiple occasions. The question is then, are there reasons to support such a definition. Some have pointed to history, but this is not so, historically an atheist was what some people would call "a strong" atheist. Some people have pointed to "logic." However this is not true as the negation of god exists is God does not exist. Some people have pointed to linguistics (a usually means without) however this is not clear in the case of atheism, see an earlier post where I quote fellow f2f legion. Some people have pointed to contemporary dictionaries, however, there are other contemporary dictionaries with the stricter definition (that some people reserve for strong atheists). See quagmire's posts on the topic. Some people have pointed to contemporary usage, however judging by the number of threads and disagreement on the definition, this is not really clear cut either.

So, if you are going to jump in and explain what atheism is, please feel free to reason why atheism is or should be as you say.

Because it is the way I use the word. Man is the arbiter of the manner of which he chooses his words. If you wish to apply additional meanings or definitions when you choose to use the word, it is fine. However it has no relevance to my use of it.

You tell me when you use the word, what you mean by it fine. I'll understand when you use it what you mean by it. If I use it and I clearly define my use of it, it is not necessary that you accept it, only that you understand my intended meaning when I use it.

Unless you wish to argue that I am not allow to determine the meaning behind the words I choose to use.

 

[McBell]

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

The actual reality of what atheism is about is merely the lack of belief in a deity.
Though some take it a step or two further and claim there is no deity at all.

Beyond that, it is nothing more than the same window dressing/fluff religions use to distinguish between themselves.

 

[McBell]

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?

This above quoted post is nothing more than an emotional pile of bull ****.

 

[Unification]

Edit: I have to correct something here in this post which is that there is already a term that replaces my made up term "devoid theist." It would be "implicit atheism." Therefore, just replace my made up term with that one.

First off, I am going to explain something about atheism. When babies are born, I don't think we would even refer to them as atheists. Atheism is a disbelief in gods. But since these babies would not even have any disbelief at all since they are not even aware that there is no god for them to develop any sense of disbelief in the first place, then I don't think they would even be atheists. We might have to come up with a different term instead. I will just make up a term and call it "devoid theist."

But where I am getting at with this is that if all human beings were devoid theists, then it wouldn't make any difference if we were atheists. We would still be just as encouraged and motivated to live this one and only life. Therefore, I see no value in realizing that we are all just going to die and not live on in some afterlife. The only value here would be living life in of itself. A devoid theist would find just as much good value and would be just as inspired and motivated to live this one and only life just as an atheist would.

That being the case, it is only this beautiful and great life itself that holds value. Actually, I think people who are devoid theists do have this idea of living forever. If you are unaware of death, then the only thing you are aware of is living. So, in a sense, you would be aware of nothing but living on forever. Therefore, it is the idea of living forever that holds the greatest value for people who are doing just fine in life and are living their good lives. So the greatest life can only be defined as living forever in the lives that we personally deem as the greatest value for us.

But being aware of mortality holds no value. As a matter of fact, there are many people who are depressed, fearful, and have a sense of less good value and worth in their lives knowing that they will just forever die in the end. Why is this? It's not just because of some irrational thought these people are having. It is because fear and depression are natural stress responses. Depression, in addition to being a chemical imbalance or something wrong with the brain, is also a natural stress response to life's stressors. It warns us when something is wrong in our lives that hinders our survival.

Since death obviously hinders are survival, then it is only expected and natural for many people to feel depressed, enraged, fearful, etc. about the very idea of dying even if it is somehow an irrational stress response. If you were told that by tomorrow you would die from some illness, then it is only natural and expected that you would feel depressed, enraged, fearful, etc. just as natural as it would be for an atheist to also feel depressed, enraged, fearful, etc. about dying. People who don't feel this way just simply means that their minds are wired differently and just aren't bothered by the idea of dying as an atheist.

Therefore, since being a devoid theist would bring us the greatest lives, then it is mortality that is the problem here since it makes so many people depressed and such. Even if there are many people who just get over that stress, mortality is still a problem for many people. Therefore, it needs to be eliminated through a cure in the future.

Animals all live just perfectly fine not being aware of their death (limited lifespan). As a matter of fact, if one of these animals were to be somehow suddenly aware of their limited life and that they are going to eventually die, then that would only serve to cause them depression, fear, rage, etc. So just as it is with them, we are also better off not being aware of mortality. But at the same time, not being aware of mortality would prevent us from trying to find a cure for it.

A lot of well said stuff. Atheism is an ideology as is theist, as is most. Really, we are all human beings. Ideologies ultimately just create judgements, labeling, and divide, and conditioning. Just as you say, no value. Ultimate awareness overcomes this and sees all as one, equal, and has no partiality.

 

[McBell]

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

Perhaps a huge font will help?

Lack of a belief in a deity

Did that help?
Do you understand it THIS time?
I mean, it isn't as if you haven't been hammered with it ad nauseum this thread.

 

[Unification]

The actual reality of what atheism is about is merely the lack of belief in a deity.
Though some take it a step or two further and claim there is no deity at all.

Beyond that, it is nothing more than the same window dressing/fluff religions use to distinguish between themselves.

Yet you are a deity yourself... divine, immortal, creating, a god(conscious) being, and are the reason for your existence.

 

[McBell]

Yet you are a deity yourself... divine, immortal, creating, a god(conscious) being, and are the reason for your existence.

*climbs up on pontoon boat*

Did I get any of it on me?