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

[Cacotopia]

I personally do not assign my thoughts about why or how things came to be with atheism, To me they are separate from each other. If I believed in the seeded earth theory where we were bacteria on a meteorite, or aliens engineered life on our planet, maybe we are a TV show for the rest of the galaxy like in that South Park episode, or a random moment with the right conditions and life popped into existence from non life, whatever the theory I don't associate it with being atheist. It's a thought of how things came to be that did not include a deity.

Does it make them atheist ideas? I don't think so personally.

 

[PureX]

Like it or not that is a belief based position. Nice attempt at a dodge though.

Only if I believed it. You keep trying to make this solely about beliefs, and it's not. Atheism is defined as rejecting the validity of the theist proposition: God/gods exist. No particular human or their particular beliefs are necessary to fulfill this definition. We can, however, apply this definition to whatever we "believe" regarding God/gods, and thereby determine whether we label ourselves "a theist" or "an atheist".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if I believed it. You keep trying to make this solely about beliefs, and it's not. Theism is defined as rejecting the validity of the theist proposition: God/gods exist. No particular human or their particular beliefs are necessary to fulfill this definition. We can, however, apply this definition to whatever we "believe" regarding God/gods, and thereby determine whether we label ourselves "a theist" or "an atheist".

You should be asking why the proposition is rejected. It is rejected due to the lack of evidence of those making the positive claim.

 

[PureX]

You should be asking why the proposition is rejected. It is rejected due to the lack of evidence of those making the positive claim.

Most often that is because the criteria being used for "evidence" is so narrow as to preclude the possibility of it existing. Which makes the rejection nothing more than a determined bias.

Example: "I demand objective physical evidence of your subjectively defined and experienced metaphysical entity or I declare both your concept and your experience invalid!"

 

[QuestioningMind]

Despite popular misconceptions, pounding on the table while speaking does not in fact increase the substance of the words being spoken. I prefer clarity of thought, over room volume, personally.


Yes, yes you are. Or if you prefer this style, YES!!!! YES YOU ARE!!!!

You are stating, "I am not convinced". That is a positive statement. That is a positive affirmation of what you believe. You believe I may be wrong. There really isn't any further explanation needed.

Wow, you clearly fail basic logic. I am not convinced is a positive statement about my lack of belief that there definitely ARE 1,403 marbles. It is NOT a positive statement that there definitely are NOT 1,403 marbles in the jar.

If you can't grasp that basic concept then further discussion is a waste of time.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Your jumping to conclusions that suit your bias and justify your subterfuge.
Anyone can assert the existence of God/gods whether they are theists or not. The assertion does not require belief. And neither does the response.

But if there wasn't anyone asserting the existence of god then no one would be asserting their lack of belief in any god. Is that really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most often that is because the criteria being used for "evidence" is so narrow as to preclude the possibility of it existing. Which makes the rejection nothing more than a determined bias.

Example: "I demand objective physical evidence of your subjectively defined and experienced metaphysical entity or I declare both your concept and your experience invalid!"

That is pure BS on your part and an apparent admission that the evidence does not exist.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I quoted what he said on the subject a page or 2 back.

tl;dr: from a purely philosophical perspective, agnostic. In a practical sense, atheist.

Russell was an atheist and he did not completely rule out the existence of gods.

 

[Windwalker]

If you can't grasp that basic concept then further discussion is a waste of time.

Yes, please don't waste your time with me. Rather, devote your time to learning how to express yourself without resorting to the cap-locks to speak thoughts you can't seem to bring forth otherwise. Hard to understand with all that pounding of the desk as you type.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not for a negative atheist, but it for a positive atheist.

All atheists lack a belief in gods, so that is why it is the best descriptor.

I'm simply stating facts about a words history and the heritage of the view it refers to. Those things aren't up for debate and the people in this thread are wrong if they think other wise.

The history of the word "atheist" includes misrepresentations made by Christians and other religious groups.

Regardless, it should be obvious from my posts that I'm not shoving anything on anyone. It is true that won't let people redefine atheism in such a way that would fail to acknowledge the historically predominant and still relevant today positive position.



As I said before, among atheists. It is deluded of you to think that Christians have been bossing atheists around when it came to defining atheism. I am strictly referring to academia throughout history and have been also quoting contemporary atheist philosophers on this issue.

Even Russell described himself as an atheist while also saying that he accepted that gods could exist.

 

[blü 2]

Why does what I mean by it matter to you? The theist proposition is directed at each of us, individually, and must then be responded to that way. I could say that my definition of God is " a feeling of wetness", and so every time it rains I feels my God's presence all around me. But what good will this do you regarding the existence or nature of God?

I infer from your inability to offer a useful definition of a real god that you have none. So it would be reasonable to expect you to agree that the notion of a real god is incoherent: there is no test which we could apply to a real candidate which would determine whether it were a god or not.

Do you? If not, what then is that missing coherent definition?

I really think you need to examine your criteria for what is, and what isn't "real" more closely, and more stringently.

If a thing has objective existence, exists independently of the concept of it in any brain, exists in the realm of the physical sciences, then it's real. Nothing lacking in stringency there.

And I already gave you my definition of 'truth'. What's yours?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

When I saw this thread, I wondered (not very hopefully) whether at least one of the atheists would say "No, and my reasons and arguments are …" I gave up after the first 5 pages, fearing death from terminal boredom. So, did anyone actually offer evidence?

Note: scepticism about religious claims is agnosticism, not atheism. That's why the word agnosticism was invented: by a man who did not believe in any religion, but did not wish to claim that religion was false, a claim for which he had no evidence.

By coincidence, I was in the library today and I actually looked in the atheism section and discovered the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism", papers by various academics. There was a lot of history and a discussion of the sort of people who are atheists, but only three papers on reasons for atheism. Two were directed purely at Christianity (the old arguments from evil and from incompatible divine attributes) while the other was an incoherent and naive attempt at a cosmological argument for atheism. Where was the attempt to explain religious experiences? Nowhere.

One day I may find an atheist (not an agnostic) who can give a justification for denying the existence of anything, let alone the divine, but I'm not holding my breatth.

 

[Darkstorn]

One day I may find an atheist (not an agnostic) who can give a justification for denying the existence of anything, let alone the divine, but I'm not holding my breatth.

Agnostics in this context are atheists. I believe neither in the existence of god(s,) nor do i believe in the non-existence of god(s.)

And that precludes me from being a theist, but not an atheist. I'm an agnostic atheist. The person you are trying to find here, is called a gnostic atheist. Quite common in fact, they are.

/E: Agnostic theists also exist for the record.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes, please don't waste your time with me. Rather, devote your time to learning how to express yourself without resorting to the cap-locks to speak thoughts you can't seem to bring forth otherwise. Hard to understand with all that pounding of the desk as you type.

If a few words in all caps throws you off, you have significantly larger problems to deal with.

 

[Augustus]

Russell was an atheist and he did not completely rule out the existence of gods.

As do I, which is why I quoted it He isn't expressing a 'lack' of belief though, but a belief gods don't exist.

Russell believed that while technically he couldn't rule it out the existence of gods was so unlikely that he could rationally assume they don't exist.

To believe something doesn't exist you don't need 100% confidence, just a (strong) balance of probabilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your first sentence is contradicted by your second sentence.

I said: "You atheists and agnostics sound like a bunch of beleivers arguing about what they believe."
I did not say you atheists have beliefs.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Isn’t Atheism a world view without any positive reasons and arguments for its truthfulness?
Regards

Atheism is not a worldview. That would be pretty stupid. It is like saying a-flytinteapotism is a worldview.

 

[Apologes]

All atheists lack a belief in gods, so that is why it is the best descriptor.

It's not as simple as that. It may be a common thread but it doesn't give you the right to limit the definition to said meaning unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The history of the word "atheist" includes misrepresentations made by Christians and other religious groups.

I see you're still charging with this christian conspiracy instead of actually accepting the fact that atheists throughout the history of academic discourse and today continue to take positive atheism seriously (with a good chunk dismissing negative atheism as downright useless).

Christians don't even enter the picture.

Even Russell described himself as an atheist while also saying that he accepted that gods could exist.

Positive atheism doesn't mean that one rejects the possibility of gods existing.

 

[Augustus]

I see you're still charging with this christian conspiracy instead of actually accepting the fact that atheists throughout the history of academic discourse and today continue to take positive atheism seriously

Bertrand Russell was apparently in on this Christian conspiracy, the devious old rogue...

Positive atheism doesn't mean that one rejects the possibility of gods existing.

I don't understand why people have such a hangup against 'belief' and the idea that one can believe something doesn't exist on the balance of probabilities without being 'irrational' or claiming to possess objective knowledge.

It's just a belief, and we believe many, many things (many of which will indeed be irrational).

 

[Windwalker]

If a few words in all caps throws you off, you have significantly larger problems to deal with.

It doesn't throw me off. It just indicates what sort of level of discussion I can expect. That kind doesn't appeal to me. Sorry.