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

[PureX]

Of course it is extraordinary. The problem may be is that you are using a word that you are familiar with and appears to be reasonable to you merely due to familiarity. Try substituting the phrase "universe farting pixies" for "God" in this post of yours and you will see how ridiculous it is.

The fact that you have to change the subject being discussed to enhance your position actually weakens your position. And even having done so, you have not logically supported your contention that such claims are more or less "extraordinary".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've no idea what I am or what I assume.

He assumed that if God/gods exist, he, or someone, would be able to prove it. And he states that because he/they cannot, God/gods probably don't exist. This is atheism based on the presumption that theism is provable. Which directly contradicts the position of agnosticism.

There is nothing to indicate that assumption. You are merely jumping to conclusions. Now it is not unreasonable to think that if a god exists that there should be evidence for it. Of course the lack of evidence does not disprove all gods, but it does tell us it is irrational to have such a belief. Please note even in your post you supported his claim of being an agnostic atheist. You used the phrase "probably does not exist". That indicates a degree of unsurety There is no contradiction If he was a gnostic atheist he would use the phrase "Know there is no god".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that you have to change the subject being discussed to enhance your position actually weakens your position. And even having done so, you have not logically supported your contention that such claims are more or less "extraordinary".

Where did I change the subject?

 

[`mud]

Some people are still lacking any clues.
I just got reprimanded for assuming that `someone` has `nothing a clue' !

Oh well....mon amie to France

 

[PureX]

Having no definition, I'm a nonbeliever.

Then what is it that you are not believing?

But given I think I'd need to withhold belief from something coherently described and claimed to be real, and not just something as trivial as 'imaginary', I have no so such definition, and I seriously doubt one exists.

You are becoming very confused, here. The theist proposition is that God/gods exist. The question being posed to you by this proposition, then, is what God/gods exist, how? And you are trying to respond with "I don't believe you", which is an incoherent answer, as it was not what's being proposed. What is being proposed is a conception of existence that includes God/gods. What you believe or do not believe about other people's conception of God/gods is not relevant.

I'm all in favor of love, kindness, forgiveness and generosity. But please explain what you mean by 'divine' here, and why those particular traits seem to you to fit your definition. Or is 'divine' meant to reflect a personal approving attitude in the speaker, rather than any quality of the trait itself?

I understand these to be "divine characteristics" because they transcend the mechanisms of physical existence. They are metaphysical, i.e., "divine" phenomena. And through them existence becomes more then physically extant, it becomes valuable.

The best answer I can give you, after thinking hard and debating my ideas on the net over quite a few years, is that 'a god' or 'God' is first and foremost an imaginary being.

"You" and "I" are also imaginary (metaphysical) "beings" that exist only as a cognitive experience within a human mind. And yet you would not deny that we "exist", would you? 'Love' is also a phenomena that exists only as a cognitive experience within a human mind, and you would not deny that love doesn't "exists", would you? 'Truth' also only exists as a cognitive experience within a human mind, and yet you live by this ideal every day of your life. So why is 'God' less extant to you then these?

In the Abrahamic West he's often conceived of as being able to do everything, and as loving but with a stern side, so perhaps he's like a huge version of the way our fathers seem to us when we're four.

Perhaps. But why are you critiquing someone else's conception of God? It won't change their mind, nor should it. And it won't illuminate yours. So what's the point? Why not ask yourself the real questions being posed to you by the theist proposition: what God/gods exist, and how so?

 

[Willamena]

I'll make one short closing statement. If you want to have a conversation about someone's beliefs, don't get too hung up about what labels they use. Ask them what they believe and why they believe it. Attempting to shove your own views onto their label usage is only going to ruin any attempt to get anything out of the conversation. It's going to make them less willing to talk with you.

My point was simply that the atheist and the agnostic are different things. Qualifying atheism with agnosticism doesn't change what either term means. My conversation was never about your beliefs.

 

[PureX]

My point was simply that the atheist and the agnostic are different things. Qualifying atheism with agnosticism doesn't change what either term means. My conversation was never about your beliefs.

Most atheists claim they are atheists because they have not been given sufficient knowledge that proves to them that God/gods exist. Yet they also claim to be agnostic when asked how they can know that God/gods do not exist. But agnostics claim that such knowledge is not available to us, and is likely an impossibility. So these same atheists are demanding knowledge of God/gods that they don't believe exists, or can be obtained. And then using it's lack as their justification for believing that God/gods don't exist.

Are you beginning to smell the disingenuousness, here? Are you beginning to see the inherent contradictions? They can't logically be an atheist AND agnostic if their atheism is based on a demand for knowledge. And yet nearly every atheist I've ever met has claimed to be both, based this same demand for knowledge.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A faith statement is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" and " firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam -Webster)

Atheism is a strong conviction and a firm belief that there is no God or gods.

False. It is a lack of belief in gods. As your definition states, faith is a belief IN something. Atheists don't believe in gods. Atheism is defined solely by a lack of belief.

 

[Jesster]

My point was simply that the atheist and the agnostic are different things. Qualifying atheism with agnosticism doesn't change what either term means. My conversation was never about your beliefs.

Sorry, I should have made that more clear. I wasn't directly quoting you there. I was making a statement to everyone. I'm just tired of arguing here. Nothing is going anywhere.

 

[`mud]

That's a very large bush we're running around here,
isn't it ?

 

[PureX]

That's a very large bush we're running around here,
isn't it ?

Yes it is. And it has a lot of different branches on it. Which is why we all keep running past each other.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

If it doesn't have to do with a disbelief in deities then it has nothing to do with atheism. It's a bit like finding a non-golfer who likes chocolate ice cream and the concluding that you must like chocolate ice cream if you don't play golf. Atheists breathe air, but I have yet to see anyone claim that breathing is therefore atheistic.

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.

Christians have defined what atheism is for quite a while. I don't think it is surprising that they got a few things wrong.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However, if Bob were to declare, "I do not go to your church because I do not believe God exists", than now is in fact a positive statement about his beliefs he saying.

Then what in the world would a negative statement about one's own beliefs look like? According to you:

"I believe in Bigfoot" = positive statement
"I don't believe in Bigfoot" = positive statement

Methinks you have something backwards.

He literally believes that God is not real.

False. He literally does NOT believe that God is real. There's a big difference between the two.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. Atheism is a statement of belief. "There is no god," is a statement of belief.

"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. "
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You atheists and agnostics sound like a bunch of beleivers arguing about what they believe. It's kinda funny.

What we find most amusing is how theists stumble over themselves to make it appear as if atheists have beliefs like they do in order to discredit atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

What we find most amusing is how theists stumble over themselves to make it appear as if atheists have beliefs like they do in order to discredit atheists.

Yes, I agree, that is a really stupid thing some beleivers do.

 

[Willamena]

"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. "
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

The rejection of the assertion that there are gods is to say that there are no gods.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, I agree, that is a really stupid thing some beleivers do.

Isn't that what you are doing?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The rejection of the assertion that there are gods is to say that there are no gods.

False. Those are two different things. When a jury finds a defendant not guilty they are not saying that the defendant is innocent, only that guilt was not proven. That's the same approach that most atheists take towards claims made about deities.

 

[Windwalker]

Then what in the world would a negative statement about one's own beliefs look like?

"I never stated that," would be a negative statement.

According to you:

"I believe in Bigfoot" = positive statement
"I don't believe in Bigfoot" = positive statement

Methinks you have something backwards.

Or you are making it about the subject. I'm not. I am saying the statements "I believe in X" and "I don't believe in X" are affirmations of a belief. "I believe" anything, is a positive statement. It doesn't matter what its affirming or denying as the object of thought. It's still stating what you believe. "I believe it's not real", is an affirmation of your beliefs. That is positive.

False. He literally does NOT believe that God is real. There's a big difference between the two.

"He literally does NOT believe that God is real," or, "He literally believes God is not real". Do you see a big difference between these two? I don't.