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

[ChristineM]

I never said that I am an authority over an atheist's mindset. I said that I am educated enough to be able to discuss atheism.

Ok lets discuss, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods. Anything else people try to attach to the label is just personal foible.

 

[Apologes]

Ok lets discuss, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods. Anything else people try to attach to the label is just personal foible.

On what basis do you distinguish between an actual definition and personal foible?

The above question is even more important when atheism has been understood in the positive sense for centuries before the negative context was introduced, so going by your view atheism only came to be in the 20th century which is a complete absurdity since it ignores the rich history of discussions on atheism that go back all the way to ancient Greece. If anything would be an insult to atheism, this would have to be it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I mean about the innate dishonesty of atheism and atheists.

Oh my! Such projection. So far all of the dishonesty appears to be coming from you.

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").

So you still cannot understand the concept of atheism. Most agnostics are atheists. You clearly do not understand either term. Perhaps you should work on that first. And no one decides what to believe, at least not if one is a rational person. This indicates that your beliefs are irrational and based upon what you want to believe.

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.

How is asking for evidence unreasonable? Rational belief is based upon evidence. Once again you imply that your beliefs are irrational. And no, there is no presumption that gods do not exist. I see that you are still having problems with the concept of atheism.

I'm simply pointing out a truth that you really don't want to acknowledge. That atheism is both dishonest and irrational, even if it turns out that there never were any gods.

You of course have it backwards. Your own words indicate that your beliefs are the irrational ones. Atheism is the rational position to take. Of course it would help if you understood what you were arguing against.

 

[Apologes]

Rational belief is based upon evidence.

That's contested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On what basis do you distinguish between an actual definition and personal foible?

The above question is even more important when atheism has been understood in the positive sense for centuries before the negative context was introduced, so going by your view atheism only came to be in the 20th century which is a complete absurdity since it ignores the rich history of discussions on atheism that go back all the way to ancient Greece. If anything would be an insult to atheism, this would have to be it.

The problem is that non-atheists have been the ones giving an incorrect definition to the concept. As a Christian would you accept a Muslim definition of Christianity?

 

[Jesster]

You are assuming that I have to be an atheist in order to know what atheism is. I have studied philosophy of religion for the past 5 years and have read a mountain of articles both by theist and atheist philosophers so I believe I am very well informed to participate in this topic.

A: You still aren't listening to what people say they believe, which isn't useful at all.
B: Asserting that you are right doesn't help. Provide your reasoning.

You continue to misrepresent my actions here as I never tried to prevent people from describing their beliefs. Given how this is an open forum there is hardly anything I can do to prevent a person from making a post in which they express their views. I have every right, however, to express my own views on the words which they use to express their views when I deem that they're not doing justice to the way these views and these words are used as they are limiting the meaning of those words to their particular version of the views which those words describe and are going so far as to deny the existence of alternative meanings of said words.

People are expressing their views just fine. You're just not listening to them. This is why I'm questioning your angle here. What's the point? Why bother? If this ever came to a discussion about your beliefs concerning religion, I'd accept what you said and address that instead of saying "nuh uh, it's really like this". One method actually gets us somewhere. The other halts discussion of beliefs.

I have already described the relevance of quoting those scholars two times now and if you're still pressured to question said relevance I find myself waiting for your to offer an objection that would cast doubt on the reasons I provided for said relevance. So far all you're doing is asserting that you can find other authorities who would agree with your position, but the point I was trying to make wasn't that there were no authorities who agreed with your view of atheism but rather it was to show that there is no agreement on what Draper accurately describes as "a surprisingly contentious issue" and if you feel like the sources I provided, reputable as they are, do not present accurate information on the relevant topic you are invited to explain how and why that is the case.

So what if two people take this position? What does that accomplish? That's what I keep asking you. I don't care unless reasoning for a position is provided, and you haven't shown any based on these examples. I'm not a lemming. "Because someone said so" does nothing for me.

Also, contrary to your accusation, I have explained why I do not accept your attempt to have the default meaning of the word atheism be that of negative atheism and I refuse to repeat myself any further.

Again, I've been explaining my position on religious beliefs. Your rejection of my position does not change my position. All your rejection does is halt progress in communication about my position on religious beliefs.

You tried to make it look like that lack of agreement was a result of the theists' (it was theists in general, not just Christians, that was my mistake) inaccurate perception of atheism. The fact that prominent atheists disagree with your definition as well is sufficient to refute that assertion.

I'm not pointing fingers at theists. I'm addressing you in paticular.

If however your response wasn't to limit the cause of the disagreement to said perception then I find it hard to understand the significance of that response or the message that you were trying to convey. Further more, in the event that you didn't want to single out the theists but still refused to mention other causes and only focused on the theists, you've arguably given even more reasons for people to be concerned when it comes to how objectively you are approaching the subject and who "you have beef" with.

Again, my particular curiosity here is with your specific agenda here. What's the point? I still don't understand why you're making this argument. Do you care what people believe and why beyond your preconceptions of the labels they use?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's contested.

Really? What would you base rational belief upon?

 

[Apologes]

The problem is that non-atheists have been the ones giving an incorrect definition to the concept. As a Christian would you accept a Muslim definition of Christianity?

The type of evidence we're talking about isn't the issue. Evidence certainly plays a role in establishing a justified belief, but it isn't the only thing that does that and it is unclear if it can even be the only thing that does that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The type of evidence we're talking about isn't the issue. Evidence certainly plays a role in establishing a justified belief, but it isn't the only thing that does that and it is unclear if it can even be the only thing that does that.

Why did you not respond to the question of Muslims defining Christianity?

 

[robocop (actually)]

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

Yes! Yes! "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers" by Rael! Free ebook at www.rael.org! You can also check out the short comic book if you have just a little time; it is "Humans were Created Scientifically" by Rael. You can see a wonderful discussion about this brief book here: New ebook "Humans were created scientifically."

 

[Apologes]

So what if two people take this position? What does that accomplish? That's what I keep asking you. I don't care unless reasoning for a position is provided, and you haven't shown any based on these examples. I'm not a lemming. "Because someone said so" does nothing for me.

Again, I've been explaining my position on religious beliefs. Your rejection of my position does not change my position. All your rejection does is halt progress in communication about my position on religious beliefs.

I do not care if you change your position. I stated why your position is wrong. You may not understand what I'm saying or may be unconvinced, but so far you provided no actual objections and instead simply kept complaining how those quotes are irrelevant despite never explaining why they are as such. Your original complaint was that they were fallacious appeals to authority. I explained clearly why that isn't the case. You've offered nothing else in response.

I'm not pointing fingers at theists. I'm addressing you in paticular.

You wrote theists in plural, so you weren't addressing me in particular. I gave you another chance to provide a coherent response and all you did was keep asking the same irrelevant questions about my personal motivations and insisted that I'm not listening all the while backtracking and denying half the things you said. I will refrain from engaging in dialogue with you any further.

 

[Apologes]

Why did you not respond to the question of Muslims defining Christianity?

Because I failed to see the relevance of the question to the topic of the thread.

Edit: I have quoted the wrong post. That response was meant for post #147.

 

[`mud]

Different name.....I get it !

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I failed to see the relevance of the question to the topic of the thread.

Edit: I have quoted the wrong post. That response was meant for post #147.

You have to be kidding. You have been using a bad definition of atheism and that question should have made your error apparent.

 

[Jesster]

I do not care if you change your position. I stated why your position is wrong. You may not understand what I'm saying or may be unconvinced, but so far you provided no actual objections and instead simply kept complaining how those quotes are irrelevant despite never explaining why they are as such. Your original complaint was that they were fallacious appeals to authority. I explained clearly why that isn't the case. You've offered nothing else in response.

You're still not offering anything. Claim that big names prove your point all you want, but there's no actual argument coming from your end yet. I can't object much when there's nothing there to object to.

You wrote theists in plural, so you weren't addressing me in particular. I gave you another chance to provide a coherent response and all you did was keep asking the same irrelevant questions about my personal motivations and insisted that I'm not listening all the while backtracking and denying half the things you said.

I'm not sure when I did this. I'm only trying to address you in particular. Can we stick with that?

I'll keep asking these questions as long as you are in this this thread without answering them.

What do you really want out of this?

 

[icehorse]

That is not the case exactly, there are Atheism activists seen challenging the believers, but only negatively speaking agaisnt the revealed religions. Right, please?
Regards

Okay, I think I see the confusion here! My first responses to you were about the general population of atheists. Ordinary people. Maybe you've been talking about the militant atheists all along? If that's the case, then I think the militant atheists generally have two opinions:

1 - They don't believe in god.
2 - They think religion has become a negative force in the world. Not just neutral, but negative. (I fall into this category BTW.)

One thing that should keep in mind though is that we can separate belief in god from religion. Those two ideas can be separated. In other words an individual can believe in god, and at the same time not be a member of any religion.

 

[Apologes]

You have to be kidding. You have been using a bad definition of atheism and that question should have made your error apparent.

What is the definition that I used? I was against limiting atheism as a whole to negative atheism and implicitly or explicitly denying the legitimacy of positive atheism which has a historical heritage and is still relevant today.

If your impression was that I tried to somehow shove positive atheism down the throats of all negative atheists in this thread then this betrays a severe lack of understanding of what I have been vocal about for the last 3 pages. Your analogy about Muslims trying to force some twisted image of Christianity onto me is indeed irrelevant, since all I called for was clarity in specifying what kind of atheism one endorses so as to avoid confusion that started with the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the definition that I used? I was against limiting atheism as a whole to negative atheism and implicitly or explicitly denying the legitimacy of positive atheism which has a historical heritage and is still relevant today.

If your impression was that I tried to somehow shove positive atheism down the throats of all negative atheists in this thread then this betrays a severe lack of understanding of what I have been vocal about for the last 3 pages. Your analogy about Muslims trying to force some twisted image of Christianity onto me is indeed irrelevant, since all I called for was clarity in specifying what kind of atheism one endorses so as to avoid confusion that started with the OP.

it has been abundantly clear that the atheists here are simply what you call "negative atheists" . By the way, making up your own terminology is always a bad idea. No one has claimed that strong atheism does not exist.

 

[Jesster]

Your original complaint was that they were fallacious appeals to authority. I explained clearly why that isn't the case.

I wold also like to address this since you keep trying to make a point with it. Yes, it was an appeal to authority fallacy. You are confusing my objection with the appeal to false authority fallacy.

Appeal to authority: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Appeal to false authority: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

The first one is your fallacy, not the second. As I've been saying, simply pulling a name out of a hat and claiming "it's true because they said it" does not make it true. Pointing to yourself as an authority does not improve on the matter. Add some reasoning or your point will fall flat.

 

[Apologes]

making up your own terminology is always a bad idea.

What terminology am I making up?

No one has claimed that strong atheism does not exist

People have claimed a dozen times that atheism is not a positive view, that it is not a truth claim etc. This just is what denying strong atheism is. Unless you skipped most of the thread, I do not see how you could make this statement.