Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Bunyip]

The argument being proposed is that atheism is a non-claim. How does one present an argument against a non-claim?

Well why would you present an argument against a claim that is not being made?

You need to make up your mind whether atheism is a claim or not, before any of this speculation makes sense.

Atheism is not a claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it is far more simple and obvious that that - people attack nihilism/materialism and so on instead of atheism because it is easier. It is the most ancient of all propoganda tools.

If you can not refute your opponents position, simply pretend that the position you imagine you can attack is theirs and try to oblige them to defend it.

.....^

The argument being proposed is that atheism is a non-claim. How does one present an argument against a non-claim? You need to make up your mind whether atheism is a claim or not, before any of this speculation makes sense.

.....^

Well why would you present an argument against a claim that is not being made?
Atheism is not a claim.

Right.....so why would you expect anyone to make an argument against atheism? Atheism as a non-claim is actually, for all intents and purposes, non-existent as to meaning. This also makes the ''burden of proof'' argument, completely ridiculous, because there is nothing for theism to be compared to.

 

[Desert Snake]

the point is, ''atheism'', cannot be logically used or compared to the word 'theism', WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF ATHEISM. It's not ''the opposite of'', in meaning.

 

[Bunyip]

.....^



.....^


Right.....so why would you expect anyone to make an argument against atheism?

I don't. I expect an argument FOR theism.

Atheism as a non-claim is actually, for all intents and purposes, non-existent as to meaning. This also makes the ''burden of proof'' argument, completely ridiculous, because there is nothing for theism to be compared to.

 

[Bunyip]

the point is, ''atheism'', cannot be logically used or compared to the word 'theism', WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF ATHEISM. It's not ''the opposite of'', in meaning.

Correct, it is the default of theism.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't. I expect an argument FOR theism.

Which definition of theism? Define theism, before expectations of arguments made for it.

 

[Bunyip]

Which definition of theism? Define theism, before expectations of arguments made for it.

Sure, that is a great starting point.

I would define theism as the belief in a personal, interventionist (theistic) God.

 

[columbus]

You need to make up your mind whether atheism is a claim or not, before any of this speculation makes sense.

Atheism is not a claim. It is the default position of making no claims about God.
However, atheists do make claims. The difference is subtle, but important. For example, "Religion is fiction. If there is anything out there that would qualify as God we humans don't know anything important on the subject. For various reasons we make up things. That is known as fiction."
That is a claim from an atheist. But it is not atheism.
Atheism is not a claim, it is an observation.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

The argument being proposed is that atheism is a non-claim. How does one present an argument against a non-claim? You need to make up your mind whether atheism is a claim or not, before any of this speculation makes sense.

This isn't the case at all. Theism makes the claim that God exists. It is up to theists to support this claim with a reasoned argument (not "proof", as some RF members seem to imply). Atheism is, in the general sense, merely a rejection of the argument that God exists. In other words, "atheism" is the refusal to "buy into" the arguments made by theists supporting their claim that God exists. Certainly there are many "strong atheists" who take it a step further and actually do make the claim that God does not or cannot exist, but it is not a requirement for atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

.....^



.....^


Right.....so why would you expect anyone to make an argument against atheism? Atheism as a non-claim is actually, for all intents and purposes, non-existent as to meaning. This also makes the ''burden of proof'' argument, completely ridiculous, because there is nothing for theism to be compared to.

You are still confused about how a claim can be debated. No one is expecting theists to argue against atheism, as no claim is made by atheism. They are, however, expected (and rightly so) to support their claim that God exists with a reasoned argument. How is that so hard to understand?

It is the responsibility to point out the inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and obvious false assumptions inherent in any theistic argument, which they often succeed at. The ridiculous part comes in when theists try to ask Atheists for evidence to support their claim. It is nothing more than a straw man, as they are injecting the false assumption that atheism requires the claim that God cannot exist. In actuality, atheism merely points out the insufficient nature of arguments for the existence of God. Expecting anything else is merely due to confusion.

If a theist wants to argue against materialism, communism, nihilism, etc. they should state this. But to equate atheism with any of these things or claiming that these things are inherently part of atheism as a world-view, is utterly unreasonable and fraudulent, imho.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Reading through the last few pages has taught me that some people still don't know how to google a word they don't know.

Atheism, as has been reiterated, is a lack of belief in God(s).
It is a lack of Theism. Theism is the belief in some form of God(s).

'a' means to be without (as another member has said).
'a'theism means to be without theism.
Theism is a belief in God(s).
Atheism therefore means to be without a belief in God(s).

It's not that difficult.

Now on the issue of "God(s)".
Gods have not been proven to be objectively real.
When someone says that a God or many Gods exist, they are making a claim.

The Burden of Proof (BOP) resides with the party making a claim without evidence.
By default, the BOP rests with theists of all forms, as they are making an unsupportable claim.
They are doing so simply by being a theist, by having a God belief.

 

[atanu]

Reading through the last few pages has taught me that some people still don't know how to google a word they don't know.

Atheism, as has been reiterated, is a lack of belief in God(s).
....

Actually it is "...lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

[leibowde84]

Actually it is "...lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

That is the same thing, for all intents and purposes. If you believe in God, then you believe that God exists necessarily, right?

 

[leibowde84]

Actually it is "...lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

But, as long as you now recognize that an affirmative belief that "God doesn't or cannot exist" is not required, but, instead, merely a "lack of belief in the existence of God". Thus, anyone who is not a Theist (holds the belief in the existence of God(s)), is, by definition, an Atheist (to lack or be without belief in the existence of God).

 

[Deathbydefault]

Actually it is "...lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the clarification.

 

[atanu]

But, as long as you now recognize that an affirmative belief that "God doesn't or cannot exist" is not required, but, instead, merely a "lack of belief in the existence of God". Thus, anyone who is not a Theist (holds the belief in the existence of God(s)), is, by definition, an Atheist (to lack or be without belief in the existence of God).

Why do you change the structure of the sentence? I wish people would be genuine. I have wondered as to what a person benefits by distorting a definition?

Now, If I were to say "I have lack of belief in the existence of Leib" what would I mean? Would I mean that "I am without a belief regarding existence of Leib"? No. I would have found evidence that a person called Leib did not exist in whole universe (or in the area under consideration) and then only I could assert "I lack belief in the existence of Leib".

As I had pointed out:

The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’.

"I have lack of belief in the existence of Leib" means exactly same as "I do not believe in the existence of Leib".

 

[atanu]

Atheism is not a claim.

This itself is a claim.

 

[Deathbydefault]

This itself is a claim.

There's a difference between claims and facts, if you cared to learn.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are still confused about how a claim can be debated.

huh? Nevermind.

No one is expecting theists to argue against atheism, as no claim is made by atheism.

ok

They are, however, expected (and rightly so) to support their claim that God exists with a reasoned argument.

Why? Expected, by who, and what ''standard''? That's the point, many atheists aren't even aware or capable of determining those things, anyway/ You have made a meaningless statement.

How is that so hard to understand?

facepalm.

It is the responsibility to point out the inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and obvious false assumptions inherent in any theistic argument, which they often succeed at.

Huh? ''inherent in any theistic argument''? That is complete nonsense.

The ridiculous part comes in when theists try to ask Atheists for evidence to support their claim. It is nothing more than a straw man, as they are injecting the false assumption that atheism requires the claim that God cannot exist. In actuality, atheism merely points out the insufficient nature of arguments for the existence of God. Expecting anything else is merely due to confusion.

If a theist wants to argue against materialism, communism, nihilism, etc. they should state this. But to equate atheism with any of these things or claiming that these things are inherently part of atheism as a world-view, is utterly unreasonable and fraudulent, imho.

No idea what, or why, you are even bringing this up. Just more off topic nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you change the structure of the sentence? I wish people would be genuine. I have wondered as to what a person benefits by distorting a definition?

Now, If I were to say "I have lack of belief in the existence of Leib" what would I mean? Would I mean that "I am without a belief regarding existence of Leib"? No. I would have found evidence that a person called Leib did not exist in whole universe (or in the area under consideration) and then only I could assert "I lack belief in the existence of Leib".

As I had pointed out:

The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’.

"I have lack of belief in the existence of Leib" means exactly same as "I do not believe in the existence of Leib".

You are kind of all over the place. I will attempt to address your 2 key points here:
1. The phrase "lack of belief in 't'" is the same as saying "without belief in 't'". If one "lacks belief in the existence of God", they are "without belief in the existence of God".
2. You are falsely assuming that one either holds a belief that God exists OR holds a belief that God cannot exist. This is not the case. Many, even outspoken, atheists express that, because their lack of belief in God is based on a lack of evidence presented by the theistic arguments, they, obviously, would not hold the opposite belief that God cannot exist or does not exist due to the same reason. Their entire reasoning is based on a lack of evidence. Thus, they refuse to "believe" either proposition that "God does exist" or "God doesn't/cannot exist". Many theists and atheists alike erroneously assign the term "agnostic" to them, but that is misleading. "Gnosticism" deals with "knowledge of God". It is not indicative of beliefs either way. That is why there are "agnostic theists" and "agnostic atheists". "Agnostic" simply indicates that knowledge of God is not possible. Beliefs, obviously, are another story.

I agree that the following sentence is true, so I fail to see why you stated this. "I have lack of belief in the existence of Leib" means exactly same as "I do not believe in the existence of Leib". If, in fact, you meant to say that these were equal to claiming that one "believes that God cannot or does not exist, then I would take issue. As explained above, there is not only 2 options here. Many (if not most) atheists express their view that they don't know whether God exists and, due to lack of evidence both ways, they are not willing to make a "leap of faith" to hold a belief either way. They, of course, "lack belief in the existence of God", as they don't hold a belief in the existence of God. Adding anything further to this automatically is unreasonable, though.