Trying To Understand Atheism

[Bogg]

I consider my self an atheist, previously a catholic for 45 years.
There is no God. There are no gods. Period. In my humble opinion of course.
Reason - we are constantly being told how wonderful god is and how he loves us, then I turn on the news!
The god or gods people refer too are more likely advanced races of beings who have visited and are possibly still visiting earth.
They would appear as god/s.

 

[Willamena]

The set is "people who don't believe in the existence of gods" and the subset is "people who don't believe in the existence of gods plus actively believe that gods don't exist".

I don't believe in sets.

And, no, it's not. The subset doesn't believe a contradiction.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't believe in sets.

And, no, it's not. The subset doesn't believe a contradiction.

Get help, Willa. Seriously.

 

[Willamena]

Get help, Willa. Seriously.

After you.

 

[Willamena]

@ArtieE, does the atheist believe there is no god?

Does the strong atheist subset believe there is no god?

If the answers to those questions are consecutively "no" and then "yes," then you have a contradiction.

 

[ArtieE]

@ArtieEdoes the atheist believe there is no god?

Depends on the atheist. A strong atheist believes there is no god, a weak atheist doesn't.

Does the strong atheist subset believe there is no god?

Yes.

If the answers to those questions are consecutively "no" and then "yes," then you have a contradiction.

They aren't and there's no contradiction.

 

[Glaurung]

It is impossible to know either way with 100% certainty. They are allowing you the benefit of the doubt and saying if you ever provide sufficient evidence, they are willing to reconsider. Which is more than most theists are willing to do.

I am not saying that an atheist must claim utter certainty. I'm saying that regardless of what atheist often claim, their position is far more than a simple "lack" of belief. There's no such thing as a lack of belief, not if we're talking about belief in any meaningful and honest sense.

 

[JakofHearts]

Atheism isn't all too difficult to understand, in fact, it is a pretty irrational position to take.

 

[ArtieE]

I am not saying that an atheist must claim utter certainty. I'm saying that regardless of what atheist often claim, their position is far more than a simple "lack" of belief.

Atheism is just absence of belief and is the absence of a position.

There's no such thing as a lack of belief, not if we're talking about belief in any meaningful and honest sense.

We aren't talking about belief but the absence of it.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism isn't all too difficult to understand, in fact, it is a pretty irrational position to take.

It's not a position it's the absence of one.

 

[Altfish]

Atheism isn't all too difficult to understand, in fact, it is a pretty irrational position to take.

Why?
It is based on rational thought.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism isn't all too difficult to understand, in fact, it is a pretty irrational position to take.

As opposed to...

*drum roll*

 

[JakofHearts]

Why?
It is based on rational thought.

Not really. Let me give you an example,

Are you an atheist that asserts the proposition that God does not exist?

Or do you simply withhold belief in God the way that agnostics do?

Keep in mind, if you choose the former then you have the burden of proof, and we all know atheists like to avoid that; and if you choose the latter, you are not only admitting that you are an agnostic, but also you concede the fact that "atheism" doesn't exist in any rational sense.

 

[ArtieE]

Or do you simply withhold belief in God the way that agnostics do?

Agnostics don't necessarily "withhold belief". You can perfectly well be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Nothing stops an agnostic from believing whatever he wants.

 

[Glaurung]

Atheism is just absence of belief and is the absence of a position.

I know that's what many atheists would like everyone to accept, but no matter how many times they repeat it, it's still sophistry.

We aren't talking about belief but the absence of it.

No such thing. You cannot talk about God and simultaneously claim an absence of a position about God. It's lying.

 

[JakofHearts]

Agnostics don't necessarily "withhold belief". You can perfectly well be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Basically, an agnostics position is "I don't know". My point is 'atheism' is a very weak paradigm, simply irrational.

If it makes you feel better to add 'atheism' to whatever other title, it isn't based on rationality, but to feel edgy? Or perhaps some vanity thing? Bertrand Russell indirectly did the same thing by calling himself an atheist on the streets for people to see, but referred to himself as an agnostic when confronted by Christian philosophers. Atheism is a fickle thing like a snowflake.

 

[ArtieE]

No such thing. You cannot talk about God and simultaneously claim an absence of a position about God. It's lying.

Of course you can talk about God without having to either believe he exists or believe he doesn't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Basically, an agnostics position is "I don't know". My point is 'atheism' is a very weak paradigm, simply irrational.

If "I don't know" is an acceptable "position" then one has to wonder why "I don't believe" isn't.

 

[Glaurung]

Of course you can talk about God without having to either believe he exists or believe he doesn't exist.

I disagree. If you take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then inanimate objects are atheists. Atheism is thus utterly meaningless.

But I've had enough interactions with atheists to know that this is not what is really going on. It is a semantic slight of hand to leverage the argument. Of course I'm sure that many atheists have actually come to believe in their own word games. Repeat something enough....

Anyway have the courage of your own convictions. I'm not demanding you claim certitude. But to just be honest. If you claim to be an atheist (even under your definition) then even still chances are that you live your life under the practical assumption that there is no God. And that is hardly neutrality. It's indistinguishable in consequence from the positive assertion that there is no God. And I'd go so far as to suggest that most atheists know this, they just won't admit it.

 

[ArtieE]

I disagree. If you take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then inanimate objects are atheists. Atheism is thus utterly meaningless.

LOL. The definition of theist is a person who believes in the existence of god(s). What makes you think we stop talking about people if we put an a- in front?

Have the courage of your own convictions.

And if you're not convinced there is a God and not convinced there is no God and say you believe neither? You're a weak atheist.

I'm not demanding you claim certitude. But just be honest. You live your life under the practical assumption that there is no God.

One can live life not believing gods exist due to lack of evidence but you can also say you don't believe gods don't exist for lack of evidence. Nobody can force you to believe one way or the other.