Shifting more towards atheism

[McBell]

Dictionaries just record our bias, ignorance, and stupidity. They do not correct it. The moment you have to run to a dictionary to defend your position you have admitted that your position is weaker then the common stupidity that dictionaries record. AND that you are incapable of actually examining the content being labeled by the term in question.

you spout this nonsense simply because you know your personal definitions are nothing more than self serving nonsense and think the above steaming pile of bull feces somehow justifies it.

Problem is...
No one is buying the snake oil you trying to sell.

 

[Koldo]

Actually, what matters is specificity, not context. There are all kinds of "art" objects in the world. And it's not their context or anyone's belief that determined what kind of art they are. It's just the WILLINGNESS to be honest and specific. We already have all kinds of words to refer to all kinds of art and artworks. All we have to do is be willing to use them. Atheism is not "unbelief" because theism is not belief. Theism is an asserted truth proposition. It's not a person that "believes" anything. So atheism is not a person that doesn't. Theism and atheism are intellectual (philosophical) positions on the truth of reality. They are not defined by whether ot not anyone "believes in" them. Any more than works of art are defined by whether or not we like them.

The context doesn't matter because what you're calling "context" here is just personal opinion. I sinlt need to know if you like the art to know that it's art. Or to determine what kind of art it is.

There is no "colloquial atheism". The poster should have the courage and wisdom to be specific about what they are actually saying. In this case they are simply rejecting an overly simplistic religious ideation of "God". And that's not atheism. That's just a narrow form of anti-religiosity.

Most of the people on here that call themselves atheists are just anti-religious. And have no idea what atheism even is.

Can you please cite the source for your definition of atheism? Is it historically relevant? Is there any sizeable group that makes use of it? Or is it just something you personally came up with after reading something?

 

[PureX]

Words have a purpose, and that is to communicate meaning. Words that only have meaning to one person (yourself), are useless.

So are words that people just invent definitions for because it serves their ignorance and bias.

All the (colloquial) atheists here tell you what they mean, they are able to communicate among themselves and the believers who understand their language. You are unable to communicate, as long as you insist on using a language only you speak.

I don't care what they mean. I donlt care what they believe. And I don't care what they don't believe. None of this defines language. None of this matters to anyone but them. I care what they assert to be true. And I expect them to do that as honestly and succinctly as they can. The fact that so many of refuse to be corrected speaks VOLUMES about the phony validity of their "atheism". It's all smoke and mirrors and deliberate confusion. And of course anti-religiosity.

I identify as a (philosophical) Agnostic.

So do I. This has no bearing on theism or atheism, though.

I don't insist that Agnostic has exactly one meaning, I just clarify which meaning I use. Not everyone is a philosopher, and I am just an armchair philosopher who hasn't to philosophize all the time. Accept that you are not the authority on word usage, and we'll all get along.

We don't all have to be philosophers. We just have to be willing to accept criticism and take correction. Because that's how philosophy works. Put the ego and the selfishness ( the kangaroo court) aside so we can discuss and learn. Because no one cares about the imagned righteousness of anyone's "belief".

 

[PureX]

Can you please cite the source for your definition of atheism?

I don't have to. I have explained the logical reasoning of it fifty times now. Either pose better logical reasoning for your silly, vague, meaningless alternative, or accept the correction. It's really not that hard to just admit that someone else has recognized the better way.

 

[McBell]

So are words that people just invent definitions for because it serves their ignorance and bias.

I don't care what they mean. I donlt care what they believe. And I don't care what they don't believe. None of this defines language. None of this matters to anyone but them. I care what they assert to be true. And I expect them to do that as honestly and succinctly as they can. The fact that so many of refuse to be corrected speaks VOLUMES about the phony validity of their "atheism". It's all smoke and mirrors and deliberate confusion. And of course anti-religiosity.

So do I. This has no bearing on theism or atheism, though.

We don't all have to be philosophers. We just have to be willing to accept criticism and take correction. Because that's how philosophy works. Put the ego and the selfishness ( the kangaroo court) aside so we can discuss and learn. Because no one cares about the imagned righteousness of anyone's "belief".

You are the only one using that train wreck of definition for the word atheism.
You are the only one claiming "kangaroo court".

Do you not find it interesting how every time you use the term "kangaroo court" it is YOU conducting it?

 

[McBell]

I don't have to. I have explained the logical reasoning of it fifty times now. Either pose better logical reasoning for your silly, vague, meaningless alternative, or accept the correction. It's really not that hard to just admit that someone else has recognized the better way.

It is interesting how you flat out refuse to follow your own advice:

We just have to be willing to accept criticism and take correction. Because that's how philosophy works. Put the ego and the selfishness ( the kangaroo court) aside so we can discuss and learn.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it's not. A proposition is a statement that expressed a determination of truth. Judgments and opinions come AFTER the proposal has been revealed, and posed.

Definition number 1, OED: Proposition:
a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
"the proposition that all men are created equal"

And how many angels really can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Koldo]

I don't have to. I have explained the logical reasoning of it fifty times now. Either pose better logical reasoning for your silly, vague, meaningless alternative, or accept the correction. It's really not that hard to just admit that someone else has recognized the better way.

You start your entire rationale by using a definition for theism that nobody else uses...

I have no reason to use your very own peculiar definition when the main alternatives provided work perfectly well.

 

[F1fan]

Bible tells God is love.

Like in the global flood myth? Like in justifying slavery? Like killing enemies and taking their women as prizes?

Conservatives do seem to accept this kind of "love" given their lack of compassion and empathy as a social norm.

Do you really think love doesn't exist? Have you not experienced love?

Humans do have a set of emotional exveriences that are called love. This is a fact. There are no Gods known to exist.

Atheists feel and express love. Many religious folk demonstrate behavior that is contrary to what love is, so we question their attitudes and belief.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Atheism is the antithetical of the theist proposition. The antithetical being that the theist proposition that God/gods exist is invalid. I repeat, it is the position that holds that the theist proposition is invalid. It has nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn’t believe.

If we're looking at this linguistically, the a- prefix denotes "without", not "opposition". What you're looking for is anti-theism. Anti theos or "in opposition of gods", rather than A theos or "absence of gods". Adding -ism places this as a belief or philosophy, and from this we clearly get "Theism: The belief in gods", "Atheism: the absence of belief in gods", and "Antitheism: opposition to the belief in gods".

Now, you're partially correct in that atheism is antithetical to theism in that the two are diametrically opposed as positive belief and negative belief. Yet neither really speak to an active claim or action, so what @dfnj said is correct; Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and it doesn't speak to any sort of active denial or statement that theist "propositions" are invalid. Antitheism is also antithetical to theism in an active sense, as it makes the direct claim that gods do not exist and that neither should the belief in them.

Yet all of them absolutely do have everything to do with what someone does or does not believe.

 

[F1fan]

The term "belief" means that we have decided to accept something as true even though we don't actually know that it is true. "Belief" is basically a dishonest presumption we make for the sake of ego and convenience.

Not true. Belief is a judgment a mind makes about some idea. It includes children believing in Santa Claus and theists believing in any number of Gods, which are socially learned, but non-factual judgments. But belief can also be true, like any jury that listens to evidence of crimes and convicts the accused. So if belief is a dishonest presumption then we can't have any trials. We can't tell anyone anything that we believe regardless of whether it is logical and follows evidence.

Oddly you write your beliefs above, so you are admitting that what you believe about belief is dishonest presumption, and I would agree with you on that one thing.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God but simply a lack of belief in God. Over the last few years, I've been shifting further to the idea without real physical evidence, then everything that occurs in our thought-space is just fabricated imaginary delusions. And the only thing that is truly real is what we experience in the presence of others. Nobody denies the existence of apples. When I hold an apple in my hand I say, "apple". It's right there. I can't do that with God. As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language. If people did not use the word God in sentences then God would cease to exist.

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

In terms of ex-Deus Machina, I believe we are all champions of our destiny. If we soil our own beds, nobody but ourselves is responsible, and available, to clean up our mess. We are fully responsible for every single aspect of our lives. Based on human experiments, there seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. God is always not intervening in the short term and always choosing his long term "plan", which as far as I can tell, is all just fantasy delusion only existing in our minds.

I've never been this far atheistic before in my life. Unless I have some earth shaking experience with psychedelic drugs, as far as I can tell, God is pure delusion having no basis in reality.

To me the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to my atheism.
I see atheism in a very broad sense as not investing belief into any of the many concepts provide by others about God and to create none which you would accept as true yourself. IMO, agnosticism fully realized leads to this type of atheism.

IOW a rejection of beliefs about God while neither accepting nor rejecting that a God exists.

However some folks use in a much narrower sense to mean a lack of belief in the existence of God or the extremely narrow view that no god(s) exist. So at least three levels of atheism.

 

[PureX]

If we're looking at this linguistically, the a- prefix denotes "without", not "opposition".

The problem with this interpretation is that theism is not something one can be “without”. Or that one can lack. It is a philosophical ideal. Once it’s been proposed, it cannot be removed from our consciousness. We will never be “without” it.
Also, the very term itself includes the fact of it’s having been proposed. Which makes your interpretation nonsensical, as would mean the prefix denies awareness of the subject it’s prefacing. And that would be wildly incoherent.

What you're looking for is anti-theism. Anti theos or "in opposition of gods", rather than A theos or "absence of gods".

The problem here is that even if “anti” theism were the more technically correct label, it is verbally very clumsy, and so was switched by use to “atheism”. And it’s now the label that’s being wrongly applied and then wrongly intended.

In this instance atheism is just a contracted version of anti-theism because anti-theism is clumsy, and because the interpretation you proposed: “without”, is simply not logical or reasonable. The long version of the contracted prefix is “antithetical”. THAT is what whichever contracted prefix we use intends to convey. and that is the meaning that’s being perverted by the common misuse of the term “atheism”.

Adding -ism places this as a belief or philosophy, and from this we clearly get "Theism: The belief in gods", "Atheism: the absence of belief in gods", and "Antitheism: opposition to the belief in gods".

Yes. The whole subject is within the realm of philosophy. Not the realm of personal belief or disbelief. Theism and atheism are philosophical terms. Not personal opinions or beliefs.

Now, you're partially correct in that atheism is antithetical to theism in that the two are diametrically opposed as positive belief and negative belief.

Neither term has anything to do with what anyone believes. They are directly related to theist philosophical proposal, and the atheist rejection of that proposal.

Yet neither really speak to an active claim or action,

The active claim is that God/gods exist. It is irrelevant who makes the claim or who believes it or who doesn’t. The question being begged is, is the claim logically valid? Or isn’t it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Don't eat the menu.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If we're looking at this linguistically, ...

You would be inviting etymological fallacy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God but simply a lack of belief in God. Over the last few years, I've been shifting further to the idea without real physical evidence, then everything that occurs in our thought-space is just fabricated imaginary delusions. And the only thing that is truly real is what we experience in the presence of others. Nobody denies the existence of apples. When I hold an apple in my hand I say, "apple". It's right there. I can't do that with God. As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language. If people did not use the word God in sentences then God would cease to exist.

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

In terms of ex-Deus Machina, I believe we are all champions of our destiny. If we soil our own beds, nobody but ourselves is responsible, and available, to clean up our mess. We are fully responsible for every single aspect of our lives. Based on human experiments, there seems to be no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. God is always not intervening in the short term and always choosing his long term "plan", which as far as I can tell, is all just fantasy delusion only existing in our minds.

I've never been this far atheistic before in my life. Unless I have some earth shaking experience with psychedelic drugs, as far as I can tell, God is pure delusion having no basis in reality.

Welcome aboard!

Atheism can also include denial of the existence of gods.
We're a big tent unorganized organization.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The problem with this interpretation is that theism is not something one can be “without”. Or that one can lack. It is a philosophical ideal. Once it’s been proposed, it cannot be removed from our consciousness. We will never be “without” it.

No? Being "without" it means not possessing it or holding it as a personal truth. "Theism" is the belief in gods; are you suggesting that atheists still have some taint of belief in gods that can't be washed out or forgotten? It's a preposterous notion.

The problem here is that even if “anti” theism were the more technically correct label, it is verbally very clumsy, and so was switched by use to “atheism”.

Sounds like a personal problem.

The active claim is that God/gods exist.

Not unless it's actively said. Passively it is the belief that gods exist.

You would be inviting etymological fallacy.

Not really, because the use of the word hasn't changed since the 1580's, nor 1788 for "antitheist".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Don't eat the menu.

Because it contains meat?

 

[Heyo]

The active claim is that God/gods exist. It is irrelevant who makes the claim or who believes it or who doesn’t. The question being begged is, is the claim logically valid? Or isn’t it?

You seem to construct a dichotomy that isn't really there. E.g. when you consider Agnosticism (the existence or nature of gods is unknown) the question becomes nonsensical. You can't have a position about something, if you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[PureX]

No? Being "without" it means not possessing it or holding it as a personal truth.

See, that's just it. That is not what "without it" means. And this is exactly the lie that so many theists are trying to tell us these days. They are not "without" theism. No one is in our culture. They are determinedly opposed to it. They consider the theist proposition invalid. They are antithetical to it. And that is what the term atheism represents ... the antithetical to theism. There is no "without theism" about it. No one but new born babies and non-humans are "without theism".

But the atheists push this nonsense because they are desperate to keep the focus and the onus on the theist. And off their own position.

"Theism" is the belief in gods; are you suggesting that atheists still have some taint of belief in gods that can't be washed out or forgotten? It's a preposterous notion.

Repeating this will not justify it. So you're wasting your time. I am not fooled by this nonsense.