You can't provide proof where there is an absence of evidence but you can use an absence of evidence as a reason for disbelief.
-
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!
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
You can't provide proof where there is an absence of evidence but you can use an absence of evidence as a reason for disbelief.
Sure. But even for them the motivation is hardly atheism.
Hitchens, specifically, insisted on pointing out (correctly) that his motivation was antitheism, not atheism. He was also a supporter of secularism and other stances.
Sam Harris has somewhat different motivations (and goals), as do Richard Dawkins and most other militants.
Uh, no. If you truly think so, that is strong evidence that you are still short of a working understanding of atheism.
Not at all. Atheism never needed evidence. Theism does.
All that atheism needs is a sincere doubt about the existence of deities. And that, dear @paarsurrey , is far more fundamental a right and far less of an issue than you seem to realize.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you've had these experiences, but since you're willing to dismiss things that don't fit, forgive me if I don't "learn" from your views.
In everyday speech there are lots of inaccuracies, but if you are fine with taking inaccuracies from what you think is everyday speech who am I to stop you.
It's quite diverse here actually, if you haven't noticed in 1700 posts...
hmmm... What I meant to say was that in the case of an atheist discussing atheism with a theist, that might be how a conversation goes. Clearly theists and atheists can have an infinite number of other conversations
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm more with @Willamena on this one but am willing to meet half way. Atheism is a core belief about the nature of reality, but is not perhaps a "worldview" in its own right. Atheism often helps form a basis for a larger humanistic worldview.
In regards to the OP. Atheism isn't about the so-called "truth", per se, but is more about what the individual decides is not part of a larger truth that is much more complex than our primitive religious ideas convey. Striving for a more accurate truth rather than going with an off the shelf banal truth is what it's all about. I think that a positive thing.
Of course there are always reasoning and arguments. They must be for something. So since I am an atheist I therefore have reasoning and arguments, and they must include those for my atheism. I don't believe in next to anything. I don't believe in time or soul.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Has one written a book on "Atheism" that gives all of these positive reasons and arguments favoring Atheism, but nothing against the Revealed Religions , please? If yes, then please share them here.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A "position on belief" ,positive or negative, is also a "belief" it doesn't become one of the sciences. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It cannot be in the core, as its name "Atheism" presupposes the revealed religions who are at the core. Atheism is not perhaps even in the periphery, exactly. It is an imaginary belief. Right, please?
One is welcome to differ with me with reasons and arguments, if any, or without.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
That is not the case exactly, there are Atheism activists seen challenging the believers, but only negatively speaking agaisnt the revealed religions. Right, please?hmmm... What I meant to say was that in the case of an atheist discussing atheism with a theist, that might be how a conversation goes. Clearly theists and atheists can have an infinite number of other conversations
Regards
Do you think such a question makes logical sense? I don't think it does.
No. Sorry, but this question is seriously confused about the nature of belief.
No. Revealed religions (of which I am not certain that there are any beyond the Abrahamics) are not the only forms of theism, although they may easily be the ones that made the development of a formed concept of atheism necessary.
What would an imaginary belief be, and how is it distinguished from non-imaginary beliefs?
This too is rather confused.
Revealed religions are fertile ground for abuses of various kinds. They should expect to be challenged by non-believers when the believers themselves fail to care sufficiently for the quality of their practice.
I have little notion of what would atheism activism be. Atheist activists exist, but they have no common cause, nor could they.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You do not understand atheism, in the slightest, but further, refuse to learn from what people are telling you. Atheism is indeed a "core" belief as it affects understanding from a primary standpoint. Your point about the name means virtually nothing. I do understand that you are a remarkably narrow minded theist but just because you think an idea is imaginary does not make it so. Sort of the same way that by my saying "There is NO GOD!" does not automatically make it so.
I'd make an argument against your thinking, but you have a fairly good heart even if your thinking is addled by your religious fanaticism.
There is no truthfulness in atheism, nor is there falsehood. For a thing to be true or false there has to be, well, a thing. There is no thing in atheism; no beliefs, no assertions, nothing that might be either true or false.
You're not hearing us. Atheism makes no statements that could be either true or false. Atheism asserts nothing, it makes no claims.
A blind faith in what? Evidence of what?
What is it that you think atheism is asserting, please?
There are some atheists who do make the positive claim that there is no God. This, for some reason, is called strong atheism, and yes, in making a claim they take on a burden to defend it. But, in essence, atheism makes no claims at all. The only feature common to all types of atheism is lack of belief. Lack of belief is what atheism is, in essence.
Atheist activists, I think, are usually responding to religious activists, not going out on their own and proselytizing. They're answering, not proselytizing.
Revealed religions at the core of what? An atheist need not ever have heard of any religions to be an atheist.
An imaginary belief in what? What is it you think atheists believe in?
Atheists believe in nothing.
@paarsurrey, to try once again, atheists often see their beliefs analogous to this.
Imagine I come to you, and say I have discovered a new species of tree, it is bright purple and jumps up and down. You will reasonably ask me to provide you with evidence. If I do not provide you with evidence you find suitable, then you will not believe me. So before I came to you, you did not believe in purple jumping trees, and after we spoke you remained in this position as I was unable to change your mind. We might call you an a-purple-jumping-tree-ist, if we liked.
Similarly, someone comes up to a person and says 'there is a God', having said things like 'God is like this, has these attributes, does these kinds of things'. The person says 'OK, can you prove to me that an entity which is like this, has these attributes and does these kinds of things, which you call God, exists?' If that someone is unable to provide the person with sufficient evidence to believe them, then quite reasonably they will remain in their state of not believing in the existence of "God". So we can call them an atheist, if we want.
But it's just that they have not been convinced. Not that they have purposefully made some affirmation. This is how many atheists are seeing their stance.
Imagine I come to you, and say I have discovered a new species of tree, it is bright purple and jumps up and down. You will reasonably ask me to provide you with evidence. If I do not provide you with evidence you find suitable, then you will not believe me. So before I came to you, you did not believe in purple jumping trees, and after we spoke you remained in this position as I was unable to change your mind. We might call you an a-purple-jumping-tree-ist, if we liked.
Similarly, someone comes up to a person and says 'there is a God', having said things like 'God is like this, has these attributes, does these kinds of things'. The person says 'OK, can you prove to me that an entity which is like this, has these attributes and does these kinds of things, which you call God, exists?' If that someone is unable to provide the person with sufficient evidence to believe them, then quite reasonably they will remain in their state of not believing in the existence of "God". So we can call them an atheist, if we want.
But it's just that they have not been convinced. Not that they have purposefully made some affirmation. This is how many atheists are seeing their stance.
Last edited:
No.
Next question?
Saysay, what was it you once said about atheism being like a chemical cleanser or something?
Ah you remember!
It was more about skepticism I was speaking of. A cleanser that dissolves all impurities so that only beliefs and ideas that stand the test of reason and experience and individual growth through the ups and downs of life remain.
Something like that.