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

[Subduction Zone]

But you do define Christianity quite often. Not to mention that the Merriam Webster dictionary also defined it as I had noted.

Now, that atheists differ in definition is as true as Christians define Christianity differently.

Where have I defined Christianity? I have pointed out how the beliefs of some Christians have been shown to be wrong. But I don't think that I have ever defined Christianity. In fact I have at the most said that one does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian. That is an observation, not a definition because there are countless Christians that accept the theory of evolution, that know there was no Noah's Ark. That is not a definition only acknowledging that those Christians exist. And in no way did I ever say because those people are Christians that others are not Christians.

That is quite possible but certainly even on this forum, it isn't always the projection.

I find also that it isn't necessarily "pending evidence" as interpretation of evidence varies. Perhaps more like "pending evidence to my satisfaction"?

For an example, the person who has an inoperable tumor with a 2 months death sentence that all of a sudden (after prayer) it disappears and no longer viewable on an MRI... spontaneous and a natural change? or God? An interpretation that will vary between a believer and an atheist.

Though tumors may disappear spontaneously, what I have found is that for the most part they disappear after prayer and medical treatment. If you have documented cases, ones where diagnosis are confirmed both before and after I would like to see them. To be evidence you would need to show that those events happen at a higher rate than when there is no prayer. From my understanding of studies that has never been shown to be the case.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is true, but then that lack of evidence provides a justification for that disbelief and therefore makes it a positive affirmation of a belief which finds support in rationality. As many argue, the claim atheism is nothing more than the absence of a belief in a god, does not seem to hold up in how it is held as a positive statement of how one views reality. I have no problem with atheism as a positive belief statement. I only have a problem with the denial that is what's actually going on.

Why is it so hard for many to just say atheism is a positive belief statement? When I used to identify myself as an atheist, I certainly didn't feel a need to deny it was a positive belief statement. It didn't seem logical to me, then or now to claim it wasn't. It always impressed me as a "too close to home" thing for many and hence the rationalizations surrounding it.

"This is true, but then that lack of evidence provides a justification for that disbelief and therefore makes it a positive affirmation of a belief which finds support in rationality."

You have that backwards. You're acting as if the default position is to believe in every single fantastical claim, until you can find justification to not believe it. That's not how it works. The default position is to not accept a claim as truth unless there is justification to believe that it is.

 

[Kenny]

If there's no explanation, I stick with "I don't know". It's the most honest position.

Yes... that is a third option.

 

[Willamena]

Because in it's most basic form, it's not a positive belief statement. There are atheists that do make a positive belief statement. There are several labels different people use to differentiate this (gnotic atheism, strong atheism, positive atheism, etc.). It was fine for you to take that position as an atheist, but please recognize that this doesn't define all atheists. The minimum requirement to be an atheist is to not accept beliefs in a god or gods. That's the position for many of us.

But the beliefs in a god or gods are rejected because of a belief that there are no gods. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Willamena]

"This is true, but then that lack of evidence provides a justification for that disbelief and therefore makes it a positive affirmation of a belief which finds support in rationality."

You have that backwards. You're acting as if the default position is to believe in every single fantastical claim, until you can find justification to not believe it. That's not how it works. The default position is to not accept a claim as truth unless there is justification to believe that it is.

Disbelief contrasts with indifference as well as belief.

 

[Willamena]

I am getting this from the definitions of "atheism", and "agnosticism". Atheism is not "unbelief". Atheism is the REJECTION of the theist's assertion that God/gods exist. Atheism is also not agnosticism, as atheism bases it's rejection on human knowledge (and on the lack thereof) as being able to validate/invalidate the existence of God/gods. While agnosticism specifically denies this knowledgeability.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

But the beliefs in a god or gods are rejected because of a belief that there are no gods. You can't have one without the other.

It seems to me that one can, if the god or gods are insufficiently defined, described or evidenced.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Most atheist don't state there is no god. They state that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief in any god.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

A refusal of a specific belief is hardly a statement of belief.

 

[Jesster]

But the beliefs in a god or gods are rejected because of a belief that there are no gods. You can't have one without the other.

Not at all. Consider the gumball example.

There is a large jar filled with gumballs. The total number of gumballs is either odd or even. Before counting them, do you believe that the total number is even? If you don't hold that belief, does it automatically mean you believe the total number is odd? Isn't it possible to believe neither before you're able to investigate further?

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that one can, if the god or gods are insufficiently defined, described or evidenced.

All reasons to reject them.

 

[Willamena]

Most atheist don't state there is no god. They state that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief in any god.

I believe that most atheists take the position that there is no god or gods based on insufficient evidence.

 

[Jesster]

I believe that most atheists take the position that there is no god or gods based on insufficient evidence.

So you're deciding their beliefs before asking them about their personal beliefs? What does that accomplish?

 

[Willamena]

A refusal of a specific belief is hardly a statement of belief.

If it's not well thought out, it can be "hardly" a statement of belief.

 

[Willamena]

Not at all. Consider the gumball example.

There is a large jar filled with gumballs. The total number of gumballs is either odd or even. Before counting them, do you believe that the total number is even? If you don't hold that belief, does it automatically mean you believe the total number is odd? Isn't it possible to believe neither before you're able to investigate further?

The gumball example exemplifies agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[Willamena]

So you're deciding their beliefs before asking them about their personal beliefs? What does that accomplish?

I stated what I believe. Take it as you will.

 

[Jesster]

I stated what I believe. Take it as you will.

Okay. Does it matter to you what other people say about their beliefs?

 

[Jesster]

The gumball example exemplifies agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnostic atheism is a thing.

Agnostic atheists will say "I don't hold a belief that the number of gumballs is even." This is my position.

Gnostic atheists will say "I don't hold a belief that the number of gumballs is even. The number of gumballs is odd."

 

[Willamena]

Okay. Does it matter to you what other people say about their beliefs?

It does. It's just off-topic.

 

[Jesster]

It does. It's just off-topic.

It's perfectly on topic here.