Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Seriously? That weak strawman is a winner? Here is a hint, a post in a debate cannot be a "winner" if it misrepresents the other side. That is called a strawman argument and it is a loser.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is atheism a belief?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism
JChnsc19
Member
I did skim over that article & I agree. Since atheism is only agreement of 1 position- non belief in a dirty- you’re gonna find varying beliefs of all kinds, kinda like herding cats. I know atheists who are terrified of haunted houses, atheists who believe in aliens, atheists who still fear hell. Science didn’t drive any of my atheism but its an interesting read.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
His problem may be that he is a "black and white" type of thinker and thinks that everyone one else is too. The Black and White Fallacy that he seems to be using is "If you do not believe in God then you believe that God does not exist".
IMO, YO is not valid.
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself accurately. I am able to write the sentence, "I do not believe in the existence of gods," and I am also able to write the sentence, "I believe that no gods exist." Whether you like it or not, these sentences express different ideas, and I hold to the first one, so the second does NOT define my atheism.
Now, the question for you is, are capable of reading as accurately as I am capable of writing? If not, what has scrambled that ability for you? Your own predispositions?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that view was incorrect. He had a false explanation of what atheism is.
Tell me, if I tried to seriously claim that Baha'i is the belief in any god claims ever made would you accept that as an accurate description of your beliefs?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then you need to be clearer. From context you were clearly discussing this failed post:
"Nice you ask this
IMHO: Atheism is a belief
The belief of one who believes there is no God or gods.
Why is it a belief? They also don't know for sure whether or not God(s) exist. They just choose to "not believe" whereas Theist choose to "believe"."
You know, I just thought this...
Atheism, as I explained in page 4 of this thread, is not a belief as I understand those concepts.
But the realization that pretending to be a theists in order to conform to other people's expectations is worse than being outspoken as an atheist might well qualify as a belief, and be mistaken with atheism proper by some theists.
Atheism, as I explained in page 4 of this thread, is not a belief as I understand those concepts.
But the realization that pretending to be a theists in order to conform to other people's expectations is worse than being outspoken as an atheist might well qualify as a belief, and be mistaken with atheism proper by some theists.
PureX
Veteran Member
You don't need to say anything. Yet you want to proclaim your "unbelief" as if it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. There are an endless number of things any one of us don't believe; don't care about, don't think about, don't know about. So it makes no sense to be proclaiming "unbelief" in gods, or in anything else. Which is why I simply don't believe you. I think you do believe that no gods exist. And I think you believe this because you, personally, have recognized no evidence to suggest to you that any gods do exist. Therefor, you believe that if any gods did exist, you, personally, would have recognized sufficient evidence of it, and would thereby have been convinced sufficiently to "believe" it. In effect, you "believe in" your own lack of information. As though your personal knowledge/ignorance were the defining factors in what exists and what does not.
I also think you know how myopic and irrational such a position would appear if it were stated as I have just stated it, and so you are trying to hide from it behind this nonsensical, non-committal smoke screen of "unbelief".
... But still assuming that what you don't know defines what doesn't exist.
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thanks Tony.
Yes this sums it up nicely IMO
I won't hold my breath for an Atheist to rate it Winner though
And that's so great about "Freedom of Speech/Religion"...all are free to believe whatever they want. Atheists/Theists both
PureX
Veteran Member
As opposed to pretending that you're an agnostic so you can avoid having to defend your atheism, even as you demand that theists defend their theism according to your biased criteria? I think there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, here.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't think Atheism is difficult to define.
I think people change things based on preferences.
For example, certain words have changed to meet personal preferences - like gay. Why? I think people prefer things that sound nice, or less direct. Just a convenience.
To show that this is the case, imo, consider the reasoning below.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
See... How complicated they make it, imo. Why. Personal preference, and convenience... imo.
So, in effect, the earlier dictionaries were incorrect, and so are some of the present ones.
atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
I don't believe the sky is blue. I disbelieve the sky is blue.
Sound quite reasonable to me.
I am saying what I think that might be true.
If you see that as a reason to attack me, then so be it. I can hardly feel responsible for your judgement.
PureX
Veteran Member
The real problem is that we keep insisting on using the term "belief" when what is actually the defining factor is NOT BELIEF, but acceptance. Theism is a category of philosophy based on the proposition that some form of deity exists, and through it's existence, it effects us in some way. Atheism is the rejection of that proposition. And is therefor the end of the philosophical discussion, ... UNLESS we want to debate WHY we accept or reject that proposition.
"Unbelief" is a dead end. An empty page full of non-dialogue. It's meaningless. And pointless. And a waste of everyone's time on a site like this.
So the moment an "atheist" declares themselves an atheist in a philosophical/theological context (like a web site designed for theological debate) the expectation is that the proclamation will come with some sort of reasoned justification. Not with "well, maybe, but I don't know, perhaps, I doubt it, but YOU'RE WRONG, for sure!"
Grow some balls, stand on a position, and defend it. No one cares what you "believe". All we care about is what you can reasonably defend. Because we can learn from your defense. We learn nothing from your "belief", and even less than nothing from your "unbelief".
"Unbelief" is a dead end. An empty page full of non-dialogue. It's meaningless. And pointless. And a waste of everyone's time on a site like this.
So the moment an "atheist" declares themselves an atheist in a philosophical/theological context (like a web site designed for theological debate) the expectation is that the proclamation will come with some sort of reasoned justification. Not with "well, maybe, but I don't know, perhaps, I doubt it, but YOU'RE WRONG, for sure!"
Grow some balls, stand on a position, and defend it. No one cares what you "believe". All we care about is what you can reasonably defend. Because we can learn from your defense. We learn nothing from your "belief", and even less than nothing from your "unbelief".
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
I wasn't attacking you, I was using the "you're" as a general pronoun. (I think that's what it's called.)
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thank you for your reply
I don't want to debate. I am fine if you see it different. You asked some questions, hence my reply. I like to share and read.
I share my view, you share your view
I feel no need to impose or be imposed
Many Atheists like to debate, if this is what you want, you better find someone else. Because I am not interested in debating, as I don't see right or wrong when talking about "(non)belief", "God", "(A)theism".
1) I don't have a definition of God
2) I don't have any image/idea of God
3) I don't know if God exists or not
Hence I choose to believe in God
Hence I choose to believe NOT in God
Both are equally irrational to me
Which one I choose depends on how I feel
Feelings depend on personal experiences
Feeling is not rational; God is not rational
I choose to believe that I will never be able to know God, IF God is defined with all these omni's. Because I don't posses these omni's, which I would need to determine God (and I don't expect getting them any time soon).
And I am totally senang "not knowing"
stvdv
Veteran Member
Viole you are Great. You solved it thanks.
I do believe abstinence to be asexual position
Hence I can say "Atheism is a belief IMO"