Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?

[Jesster]

I don't assume you're a positive atheist, but I also don't assume you're a negative atheist. I'll expand on this below.

No need to expand. I'll stop you there. I see exactly where you're slipping up and it's not worth it to me to address or read the rest of your post when I see the fault so early.

You're trying to split atheism like this:

The problem there is that you aren't even giving the larger circle a label. When I say I'm an atheist, I'm pointing at the larger circle, but you aren't allowing that to have an identity. You're trying to force people into sides, and that's not how it works.


This is a more accurate representation of how these categories work:

This allows for the larger category to have an identity. Any subcategories can be fitted into smaller circles within the larger one. Those smaller circles share the identity of the larger circle while having additional information of their own. The larger circle does not share that additional information of the smaller one.

If we give the big, blue circle the identity of 'A', then the smaller purple circle is 'A + B'.

In the case of atheism, the blue circle represents everything that any form of atheism shares. That only includes the lack of belief in a god or gods.

The smaller purple circle also includes that larger definition, but adds on an additional truth claim that there are no gods.

Additional circles can be added within the larger circle. They can even overlap with each other. They will always only remain a smaller part of the larger blue circle though.

This isn't just about how atheism works. This is about the basics of identities and how they relate to each other mathematically and categorically.

(then you would run into problems such as agnosticism becoming a type of atheism as well, despite the historical insistence of agnostics not to be labeled as atheists even in the negative sense)

This is the one additional thing from the rest of your post I would like to address. Agnostic Atheism is a thing. It's even a label that describes me. Allow me to explain.

Gnosticism describes a position of certain knowledge. Therefore, agnosticism is a position of not claiming certain knowledge.

If theism is a belief in a god or gods, then atheism is it's opposite (without belief in a god or gods).

One directs your knowledge claims and the other directs your position on beliefs. You can combine these.

• An agnostic theist believes there is a god or gods, but does not claim certainty in them
• A gnostic theist believes there is a god or gods and claims certainty in them

In the second circle above, agnostic theism is the larger blue circle and gnostic theism is the smaller purple circle within it.

• An agnostic atheist does not hold a belief in a god or gods, but does not claim certainty about their nonexistence
• A gnostic atheist does not hold a belief in a god or gods and claims certainty in their nonexistence

In the second circle above, agnostic atheism is the larger blue circle and gnostic atheism is the smaller purple circle within it.

 

[Jesster]

If anything, I'd ask what kind of atheist you are. That's if I was interested in knowing your personal views.

I'd like to bring attention back to this again. Every time an atheist in this thread has described their position, all you've done is argue against their position. If you aren't interested in knowing someone's personal views, why bother addressing them at all?

 

[Apologes]

No need to expand. I'll stop you there. I see exactly where you're slipping up and it's not worth it to me to address or read the rest of your post when I see the fault so early.

Oh, so we're playing that game? If you had actually stuck with the rest of the post instead of just assuming what I was trying to do in that paragraph you'd see that I explained that we have completely different criteria for how definitions should be decided. You'd also see me quote scholars to explain how it is far from obvious (if it is the case at all) that the meaning of atheism works as you claim.

I'm not foolish enough to respond to people who will dismiss 90% of my post without even reading it. Unless you actually address what I said, this conversation is over.

 

[Jesster]

Oh, so we're playing that game? If you had actually stuck with the rest of the post instead of just assuming what I was trying to do in that paragraph you'd see that I explained that we have completely different criteria for how definitions should be decided. You'd also see me quote scholars to explain how it is far from obvious (if it is the case at all) that the meaning of atheism works as you claim.

I'm not foolish enough to respond to people who will dismiss 90% of my post without even reading it. Unless you actually address what I said, this conversation is over.

If you make a fault early on that leads into the rest of your explanation, I will correct that fault first. Otherwise I am wasting my time addressing an irrelevant point.

You may have noticed that I did read through the rest. I didn't find much of it too useful since none of it helped the fault in your opening, but I did grab one thing out that needed addressing while I was there.

As for the rest...

If anything, I'd ask what kind of atheist you are. That's if I was interested in knowing your personal views.

I will yet again point us back here. If you want to know what someone's personal views are, what is the point of shoving another individual's beliefs in the way instead? Are you interested in my position? Then listen to my position and accept what I say about myself. If you want to know what someone else thinks, ask them instead. Don't go trolling over other unrelated atheists over some superiority game. It also doesn't help to just cherry pick the people you prefer. You've made an argument from authority, which is a fallacy. Instead of going with "well this person says...", try explaining your position and why you hold it.

 

[ChristineM]

The fact that so many people echo this statement shows that it's a statement that needs to be adressed. All of you (and others who I didn't bother quoting) are going by a very particular version of atheism and are equivocating it with atheism in general. Some of these posts do it implicitly and others explicitly deny that atheism means anything else than "lack of belief", "not believing" or something else along those lines.

This is indeed what many atheists take their atheism to mean, however it is far from being the only way atheists have understood their position. Throughout centuries (and even today) there are plenty of positive atheists who hold a positive belief that "There is no God" and who thereby make a truth claim and a claim to knowledge.

They thus do bear a big burden of proof and have attempted throughout history (and still do just as actively) to present positive arguments for the truth of atheism (the claim that there is no God). Examples of these famous attempts would be the various versions of the problem of evil or perhaps (more recently) the problem of non-resistant non-belief.

The whole distinction between negative and positive atheism is a relatively recent one as early proponents of the distinction such as Flew admitted that atheism (in the negative sense) would have to be understood in a very unusual way, different from how it was understood before both by theists and atheists.

Bottom line is, atheism is not a view that can be generally limited to any one thing. There are different kinds of atheism and not all of them are negative, so just as it is unhelpful for the OP to limit atheism to a positive sense, it is equally unhelpful for you lot to limit it to the negative sense.

You want a quote, how about the accepted dictionary definition?

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Anything else is misrepresentation.

It is equally unhelpful for people with a religious agenda to misrepresent a definition.

 

[Apologes]

You want a quote, how about the accepted dictionary definition?

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Accepted dictionary definition? You do know that there are other dictionaries that present alternative definitions:

"atheism - noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." [1]

Anything else is misrepresentation.

On what basis do you assert that?

It is equally unhelpful for people with a religious agenda to misrepresent a definition.

Why do you assume there is religious agenda behind this alleged misrepresentation? Whose agenda is it?

 

[Jesster]

Accepted dictionary definition? You do know that there are other dictionaries that present alternative definitions:

"atheism - noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." [1]

On what basis do you assert that?



Why do you assume there is religious agenda behind this alleged misrepresentation? Whose agenda is it?

Maybe if you're this unsure about a definition, you could ask someone what they mean when they use a label instead of asserting your own views over them. I've told you what I mean when I say 'atheism', and my usage does follow the common trend these days. If someone has a different usage, I will ask them what they mean by it. There are definitely different perspectives, and that's fine, so long as people are allowed to explain. This is yet another reason to start at the loosest possible definition so you aren't running over toes.

Labels only help to a point. When you get this caught up in them, you aren't even discussing someone's beliefs anymore. You're trying to dominate them to 'win' something. What's your prize?

 

[PureX]

No, I just don't have any reason to buy into any god concept. It's not a belief or world view.

Case in point ... you also have no reason not to, and yet you have chosen not to, based on "no reason". This IS your chosen position. It IS your belief that gods don't/can't exist without there being sufficient reason, and that the reason must be discernible by you. That's a position. That's a belief. And that's a "world view" (your view of reality and truth).

 

[Jesster]

Case in point ...

Care to elaborate?

 

[PureX]

Hmm, not playing football is a sport and a worldview on baseball as well, who'd a thunk it?

Playing a game is not a "belief" or a "world view", so your analogy is quite disingenuous, ... to be expected from an atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

Accepted dictionary definition? You do know that there are other dictionaries that present alternative definitions:

"atheism - noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." [1]

On what basis do you assert that?



Why do you assume there is religious agenda behind this alleged misrepresentation? Whose agenda is it?

I am sure there are some Christian owned dictionaries who want to twist fact to massage egos.
I use the OED, and other english dictionaries. Seems you use dictionary.com... Interesting


The basis of the definition.


Well yours for a start.

 

[PureX]

What a silly claim. As if people define their world views based on what they DON'T believe in.

Of course they do. We all do, just as much as by what we DO believe to be true. How could it be otherwise? The truth, for we humans, is as defined by what it's not as by what it is.

That would mean that YOUR wold view is based on your lack of belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and magical unicorns,as well as the long list of all the other things you DON'T believe in. How absurd.

All those things exist, and you know this as well as I do. We just don't believe they exist as autonomous physical entities. Interesting how the moment I toss in a crack about the dishonesty of atheists, that coveted atheistic logic and reason suddenly flies out the window, and the knee-jerk auto-defense mechanism takes over.

 

[ChristineM]

Playing a game is not a "belief" or a "world view", so your analogy is quite disingenuous, ... to be expected from an atheist.

Case in point.

And i elaborate. Misrepresentation.

 

[Apologes]

I am sure there are some Christian owned dictionaries who want to twist fact to massage egos.

That's a curiois thing to say. How do you tell which dictionaries are owned by Christians? Side question, do you think that these dictionaries are unreliable because of the fact that they are owned by Christians?

I use the OED, and other english dictionaries. Seems you use dictionary.com... Interesting

Is there something wrong with the source I used?

The basis of the definition.

Care to elaborate?

Well yours for a start.

What reason do you have for assuming that me responding to your post is motivated by some religious agenda? What kind of agenda would that even be?

Regardless of your uncharitable and insulting remarks (sufficient for me to end the conversation right here and now), my response to your post isn't rooted in any religious motive and even if it were that wouldn't be sufficient to make my response flawed. As far as actual objections go, all you did was post one definition of atheism (which I didn't strictly disagree with) and asserted everything else is a misrepresentation. Not a particularly convincing rebuttal.

 

[Jesster]

(sufficient for me to end the conversation right here and now)

I'll ask again. Why bother posting here? You don't seem to care about any atheist's actual position, which is the point of the topic. What's your agenda?

 

[ChristineM]

That's a curiois thing to say. How do you tell which dictionaries are owned by Christians? Side question, do you think that these dictionaries are unreliable because of the fact that they are owned by Christians?



Is there something wrong with the source I used?



Care to elaborate?



What reason do you have for assuming me objecting to your post is motivated by some religious agenda? What kind of agenda would that even be?

Regardless of your uncharitable and insulting remarks (sufficient for me to end the conversation right here and now), my response to your post isn't rooted in any religious motive and even if it were that wouldn't be sufficient to make my response flawed. As far as actual objections go, all you did was post one definition of atheism (which I didn't strictly disagree with).

Simple internet search, "who owns ???" try it some time.

I certainly think all religious publishing is biased in favour of that religion. So you think otherrwise?

Obviously nothing wrong with your source for you, it agrees precisely with your world view of atheists.

The oed definition (and others that use the entomology of the word) are precise.

Your agenda to have all atheists abide by your world view.

Oh sorry, i thought you were the one disrespecting atheism but you want to pull out, fair enough.

 

[PureX]

Care to elaborate?

Sure ... you also have no reason not to believe in the existence of God/gods, and yet you have chosen not to, based on "no reason". This IS your chosen position. It IS your belief that gods don't/can't exist without there being sufficient reason, and that the reason must be discernible by you. That's a position. That's a belief. And that's a "world view" (your view of reality as truth).

Care to respond?

 

[Jesster]

Sure ... you also have no reason not to believe in the existence of God/gods, and yet you have chosen not to, based on "no reason". This IS your chosen position. It IS your belief that gods don't/can't exist without there being sufficient reason, and that the reason must be discernible by you. That's a position. That's a belief. And that's a "world view" (your view of reality as truth).

Care to respond?

No, I haven't chosen that. All I've chosen is to open myself up to evidence and possibilities. Just because none of that has led me to believe in any god doesn't mean I have chosen any conclusion. It's just the result of my searching so far.

It is also not my belief that gods don't or can't exist. I've never said such a thing. I just have no reason to believe that any god does exist. That's not enough to create a belief or world view.

All you've done here is create a massive straw man instead of addressing or listening to my real position.

 

[Apologes]

I'd like to bring attention back to this again. Every time an atheist in this thread has described their position, all you've done is argue against their position. If you aren't interested in knowing someone's personal views, why bother addressing them at all?

I will yet again point us back here. If you want to know what someone's personal views are, what is the point of shoving another individual's beliefs in the way instead? Are you interested in my position?

When you get this caught up in them, you aren't even discussing someone's beliefs anymore. You're trying to dominate them to 'win' something. What's your prize?

I'll ask again. Why bother posting here? You don't seem to care about any atheist's actual position, which is the point of the topic. What's your agenda?

With all due respect, my reasons for doing something are none of your concern and I would appreciate it if you stopped so persistently inquiring into that.

The topic of the thread is whether or not atheism can be construed in anything other than the negative context ("Isn't atheism a world view without reasons or arguments?") which the people I quoted in my original post endorsed and the properties of which they misleadingly attributed to atheism as a whole. My posts have been perfectly on topic given how they were raising attention to the historical and contemporary construals of atheism in a purely positive sense.

That the topic expanded to whether negative atheism should be considered the default meaning of the word atheist was an off-shoot of our interaction which reached halt after you refused to adequately tackle my post. I see that you've called my quoting of the IEP and Stanford articles an appeal to authority fallacy so I suppose that's the one thing that would be worthy of mention.

The reason I used those two articles was to refute your assertion that the position I'm holding is a result of the theists' misguided perception of atheism. The two articles were from two leading encyclopedias of philosophy available online and were written by contemporary atheist philosophers of religion. This effectively does away with your claim of Christian bias (or whatever you prefer to call the lack of accuracy in their perception of atheism and the alleged conflation with anti-theism).

An appeal to authority is a fallacy only in so far as the authority being appealed to is not at all an authority of the relevant field. Your accusation of me making a fallacy fails on this account for these are very prominent thinkers who publish in peer-reviewed journals and are respected in both theistic and atheistic circles. As such, my appeal to authority was valid.

 

[PureX]

No, I haven't chosen that. All I've chosen is to open myself up to evidence and possibilities. Just because none of that has led me to believe in any god doesn't mean I have chosen any conclusion. It's just the result of my searching so far.

[*staff edit*]

Clearly, you HAVE chosen to believe that gods can't and don't exist unless someone can provide you with the evidence of their existence. Evidence, that is, as determined by YOUR criteria, which I strongly suspect is so irrationally limited as to be impossible. And if this were not the case, you would not be calling yourself an atheist, you would be calling yourself an agnostic. That is someone who believes that gods may or may not exist, but that they cannot make this determination based on knowledge (including whatever they are labeling "evidence").

It is also not my belief that gods don't or can't exist. I've never said such a thing. I just have no reason to believe that any god does exist. That's not enough to create a belief or world view.

When you demand "evidence", you presume that such a demand is reasonable. This IS YOUR POSITION, AND IT IS YOUR WORLD VIEW: that existence is evident, and that you can determine what does and does not exist via that evidence. Since you have no evidence of gods existing, you presume that no gods exist. Otherwise, you are not an atheist. You are simply agnostic.

[*staff edit*]