Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Bunyip]

NO. This argument ussually is followed by saying that materialism isn't atheism because materialism is a dogma and implies that sceptics therefore have a monopoly on defining atheism.

Sorry, but I do not know what you are referring to. Materialism isn't atheism. And materialism is a philosophical approach or perspective - not a dogma anyway.

This doesn't simply say that atheism is "lack of belief" but then goes on to define it only as lack of belief. This saves the "sceptics" from having to deal with theists accusations of materialism, nihilism, communism etc whilst continuing to identify as atheists.

Well atheism has no position on materialism, nihilism, communism etc - so the theists need to stop making accusations that do not relate to atheism.

the definition of atheism as "lack of belief" then mutautes into "well communists weren't atheists so we don't have to deal with their c**p".

Sorry, but you are not making sense. Communism and atheism are different things mate.

For what it's worth, here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-new-atheists-communists-arent-atheists-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/

Atheism is not materialism, communism, nihilism etc. Atheism speaks only to theism. Atheism is about belief in God.

 

[Bunyip]

Reading this thread the problem for atheists is becoming very clear - most of the responses from non-atheists are mistaking atheism for nihilism, communism, materialism etc etc etc and all the atheists seem to get to do is try to address those misconceptions.

Debates here seem to rarely get past that point.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, but I do not know what you are referring to. Materialism isn't atheism. And materialism is a philosophical approach or perspective - not a dogma anyway. Well atheism has no position on materialism, nihilism, communism etc - so the theists need to stop making accusations that do not relate to atheism. Sorry, but you are not making sense. Communism and atheism are different things mate.
Atheism is not materialism, communism, nihilism etc. Atheism speaks only to theism. Atheism is about belief in God.

Well put. It's crazy to me that people make so many erroneous assumption about and connections to atheism. To suggest that the lack of theism somehow has included in it certain philosophical and political theories is ridiculous. Nothing but straw men.

 

[Bunyip]

Well put. It's crazy to me that people make so many erroneous assumption about and connections to atheism. To suggest that the lack of theism somehow has included in it certain philosophical and political theories is ridiculous. Nothing but straw men.

I find that all I ever get to do is try to explain why the position I am being obliged to defend or debate is not my position.

 

[Bunyip]

And worse - as I try to explain why the position I am being obliged to defend is not my position, rather than ever acknowledge that and move on - I find that with unsettling consistency the believer simply gets more and more emphatic in insisting that I really do hold the position I don't hold. And if I persist in attempting to correct that misconception that will result in getting attacked for 'backtracking', 'hypocrisy', 'derailing the thread' and so on.

 

[atanu]

?....This saves the "sceptics" from having to deal with theists accusations of materialism, nihilism, communism etc whilst continuing to identify as atheists. the definition of atheism as "lack of belief" then mutautes into "well communists weren't atheists so we don't have to deal with their c**p".

For what it's worth, here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-new-atheists-communists-arent-atheists-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/

This kind of atheist has a vacuum mind and so has no belief regarding what he denies. It is somewhat similar to some Buddhist denying a self with a self. These things happen.

 

[atanu]

And worse - as I try to explain why the position I am being obliged to defend .....

So there is a position that one is obliged to defend, but you say that such an atheist has no belief regarding that position, this way or that way?

You may think that is possible. But neuroscientists, logicians, philosophers, and any person with a bit of common sense will point out that the mind is never a vacuum in respect of a proposition. The reason that some hold on to a so called 'no-belief' kind of belief and are obliged to defend that belief again and again is because they think that their beliefs alone are 'education' and other beliefs are superstitions. There is hint of 'educated' no-belief in this very thread.

 

[Thief]

Many theist get tired of having no evidence in support of their faith. They take the education, facts and knowledge that go aginst their position very personal, and then leash out in their weak attacks.

this^ would be an example to consider

 

[Bunyip]

So there is a position that one is obliged to defend, but you say that such an atheist has no belief regarding that position, this way or that way?

I'm sorry, but can you re-write that please? What are you asking? I'm quite sure I said no such thing, perhaps you are confusing me for somebody else?

You may think that is possible. But neuroscientists, logicians, philosophers, and any person with a bit of common sense will point out that the mind is never a vacuum in respect of a proposition.

Again, I don't know what you mean. What is it you believe I think is impossible?

The reason that some hold on to a so called 'no-belief' kind of belief and are obliged to defend that belief again and again is because they think that their beliefs alone are 'education' and other beliefs are superstitions. There is hint of 'educated' no-belief in this very thread.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What belief are you referring to? And what has it got to do with education?

 

[atanu]

I'm sorry, but can you re-write that please?

No. I am also sorry that I cannot.

 

[Bunyip]

No. I am also sorry that I cannot.

Why not? I am happy to answer, clarify or explain. I am just not sure what you are asking.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So there is a position that one is obliged to defend, but you say that such an atheist has no belief regarding that position, this way or that way?

You may think that is possible. But neuroscientists, logicians, philosophers, and any person with a bit of common sense will point out that the mind is never a vacuum in respect of a proposition. The reason that some hold on to a so called 'no-belief' kind of belief and are obliged to defend that belief again and again is because they think that their beliefs alone are 'education' and other beliefs are superstitions. There is hint of 'educated' no-belief in this very thread.

You see, atheists feel the need to defend atheism because so many people, whether they are stupid or ignorant, tie it to all these things that it is not. I can't think of a single person that wouldn't want to defend their belief when it is so blatantly misinterpreted. So you can assert that we think our belief is just better, and that we're on some sort of high horse. But if I started senselessly attacking your belief with baseless and false statements, you'd probably dislike it too.

"Oh, so you believe in x? You must obviously worship Satan and eat babies."
"You believe x? Well then I can't trust you."
"I didn't know you were x... is it true that you have no morals?"

 

[Quintessence]

Reading this thread the problem for atheists is becoming very clear - most of the responses from non-atheists are mistaking atheism for nihilism, communism, materialism etc etc etc and all the atheists seem to get to do is try to address those misconceptions.

Debates here seem to rarely get past that point.

It is ironic and unsurprising that parallel problems plague discussions about a wide variety of topics, including theism, religion, and irreligion. That's going to happen any time one is discussing meta- terms that cover a very broad range of territories. People will cling onto the most salient manifestation of those meta- categories and use that as a basis for discussion. Frequently, the most salient is not what is representational of the category, nor what is the case of the individual one is having a discussion with in that particular moment. Apparently, it's too much work to use more precise terms in conversation.

 

[atanu]

You see, atheists feel the need to defend atheism because so many people, whether they are stupid or ignorant, tie it to all these things that it is not. .....

"Oh, so you believe in x? You must obviously worship Satan and eat babies."
"You believe x? Well then I can't trust you."
"I didn't know you were x... is it true that you have no morals?"

I had asked another poster to show real example/s of the dialogue shown in blue. There is none.

OTOH, throwing about of 'Nonsense', 'Get some education', 'stupid' etc. are very common and can be seen in this thread itself.

 

[outhouse]

'Get some education',

This is a debate section.

That means you need to substantiate your claims. You cannot just make stuff up from ignorance and expect not to get called on it.


Knowledge is power in a debate, it seems like you think ignorance or faith has an equal say?

 

[Desert Snake]

Well put. It's crazy to me that people make so many erroneous assumption about and connections to atheism. To suggest that the lack of theism somehow has included in it certain philosophical and political theories is ridiculous. Nothing but straw men.

I don't need to make assumptions when I know that someone is incorrect. The real issue is, 'atheism', has to be defined in a debate, for it to be argued for or against, as does 'theism'. These definitions cannot be too broad, because when they are too broad, the arguments change. If one thinks that the arguments are the same for broad, or narrow, definitions, then, the person doesn't know the subject, etc

 

[Cephus]

I don't need to make assumptions when I know that someone is incorrect. The real issue is, 'atheism', has to be defined in a debate, for it to be argued for or against, as does 'theism'. These definitions cannot be too broad, because when they are too broad, the arguments change. If one thinks that the arguments are the same for broad, or narrow, definitions, this is referred to as ''the person doesn't know what they are talking about''.

No it doesn't, positions don't have to be defended, only claims. Atheists, by and large, are making no claims, therefore they don't have anything to defend. If you don't like that, stop making claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

No it doesn't, positions don't have to be defended, only claims. Atheists, by and large, are making no claims, therefore they don't have anything to defend. If you don't like that, stop making claims.

This is a great example of not understanding the subject.

 

[outhouse]

The real issue is, 'atheism', has to be defined in a debate, for it to be argued for or against, as does 'theism'

These definitions are meaningless to the CONTEXT of claims made by each.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I had asked another poster to show real example/s of the dialogue shown in blue. There is none.

There are many.
This is especially true in real life.
There is in this very thread.

OTOH, throwing about of 'Nonsense', 'Get some education', 'stupid' etc. are very common and can be seen in this thread itself.

Of course. They are common usages, this is the internet.
"Get a reality check" is my favorite one to use.