What double negatives? Methinks you are imagining things
The simple fact is your negative bias and ignorance of atheism is showing you up for what you are.
That definition is from the OED, (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY), you don't like talk to them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
What double negatives? Methinks you are imagining things
The simple fact is your negative bias and ignorance of atheism is showing you up for what you are.
That definition is from the OED, (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY), you don't like talk to them.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yes, I’m sure you have lots of characteristics unrelated to your atheism.
But if of your own free will, you apply a particular label to yourself, you are going to look a little unconvincing when you claim to resent being defined thereby.
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point - no God concept, no atheism. Atheism is defined in precise relation to the very thing in which the atheist professes disbelief.
Do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, etc?
All you and others are doing is showing your misunderstanding or ignorance of what atheism is.
How is it "dishonest" to say that one does not believe in that which one does not believe? Do you believe in spontaneous human combustion? I do not, although I read much about it when I was a teenager. Oh, there was lots of pseudo-scientific explanation of how it could happen -- far beyond my meagre ability to wade through at the time. I even got the shivers thinking about it. Now, I'm an adult. I'm a little better versed in the sciences.
Do you believe in Gremlins? I remember a Twilight Zone episode with William Shatner that featured one on the wing outside Shatner's seat, trying to rip open the engine at 20,000 feet. And of course, the movie series of the same name. Do you believe in them or not? What "philosophical proposition" would you be rejecting if you said "no?"
More to the point, there are very respectable philosophical views that do consider gods to be the creation of human minds, and therefore having effect only through the actions of those who have accepted the philosophical propositions of theism to be invalid in a realism sense, despite the waning interest in logical positivism (which had something going for it, in my view). Philosophy, especially in the analytic tradition, places emphasis on precision of terms and clarity of concepts and ideas. Religious language is often vague, imprecise, and couched in mystery. It is not too difficult to challenge that linguistic imprecision using the notion of verifiability to reject as meaningless all non-empirical claims.
Yes… but it can also get to the point of being so lengthy and wordy that the concept and ideas are utterly lost in the nonsense of human thinking trying to make sense out of nothing. That being said, there are philosophical points that are extremely well stated and important to consider
Like philosophy, it can be vague et al. However, that being said, there is language that is very clear, very precise, revealing what use to be mystery and cannot be challenged and gives meaning to those who have meaningless lives.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I am pretty much indifferent to the whole concept of leprechauns, and therefore see no reason to label myself as an a-leprechaunist. Nor can I ever see myself debating the existence of leprechauns, on a forum dedicated to the subject, if such a forum exists.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
yeah, at one time iidb and secular cafe were very interesting. but there is not much difference between the forms. we had people from abrahamiic and other religions there also. i have not visited the current avatara of iidb for a long time. it is not that interesting. i will go there again.
Last edited:
So you use no labels at all to refer to yourself? You're not sometimes a realist, a fatalist, a misogynist or feminist or monogamist or polyandrist, a hobbyist, a musician or artist or avid reader? You're not a (pick a religion), nor a (pick a nationality)? Not a vegetarian, or vegan, or husband or wife? Or heterosexual or homosexual or asexual?
There are a million ways in which we humans can describe ourselves, all sometimes (trivially) true at the moment, but none capturing everything about us. If you are going to pick one such descriptor about someone, and declare "that's all you are, that's the sum of who you claim to be," then I think the problem is yours, and you are going way too far. As well as identifying something about yourself -- i.e. that descriptor (in this case atheist) is something that YOU dislike, and that's why you choose to give it special attention.
And I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole concept of gods but you guys label me with atheist label built to your specification and not the dictionary definition.
Personally I don't care about being labelled atheist just so long as the definition is accurate. but if people use religious dogma to build false definition then i call them out
And i see you discussing leprechauns at this moment, interesting
Funny you should mention! Do you know, most of us who are atheist didn't really know that's what we were until somebody told us, looking as aghast as possible. It usually happens in innocuous situations where such questions as "what, you don't believe in God?" can come up -- weddings and funerals, for example, and when we say, honestly, "well, actually, no I don't," are told: "OMG, you're an atheist!" We were just as indifferent to the concept of deities as you claim to be about leprechauns.
The thing is, though, that when it comes right down to it, while claiming indifference, you are faced with the existential fact that you either believe the exist, or you don't, and when you are asked that question directly, it is disingenuous to respond, "I neither believe nor disbelieve, I'm indifferent." Because that is an answer to another question altogether.
Ha ha, @Christine, I see we were writing on the same wave-length at the same time.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
i would not answer that way. i say there is no possibility of existence of any god or goddess. as for my existence, of universe, birth and death, they apparently exist, but are not truth. people give round replies when they are not sure about their thoughts.
PureX
Veteran Member
Well, first off no one cares what anyone else "believes in". And no one cares AT ALL what anyone does NOT believe in. So you're trying to define atheism via a non-existent belief that is totally irrelevant. And there is no logical reason that non-existence and total irrelevance would need defined, or could even be defined, or could be used to define anything else. It's all just empty gibberish.
I don't care at all whether you believe in it or not, and neither does anyone else. And in fact, neither, even, do YOU.
I am not so foolish as to think that "believing in" things that I can't know, matters. So until you are finally willing to let go of all this gibberish about "belief" and "unbelief", we really have no basis for an intelligent conversation.
That is called theology, not philosophy. Theology is a subset of philosophy based on the philosophical premise that God/gods exist and do so in a way that effects our experience of existence.
Religions are neither philosophy nor theology. Religions are collections of conceptual tools taken from theology, history, mythology, tradition, culture, and art, that people can use to help them live according to whatever theological premise they choose to adhere to.
Until you finally drop all this BS about "unbelief" and start understanding the real and different intellectual disciplines involved in philosophy, theology, and religion, you're going to continue wallowing in this nonsensical "unbelief" gibberish and pretending it's supposed to mean something when it doesn't.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Although that is a common dictionary definition, there are many ways to construct definitions. I dislike this particular one for the same reason that you do--it doesn't express the fact that people normally use the word to describe people who know what gods are and have consciously decided to reject the rather commonly held belief that they exist. Obviously, if someone disbelieves in the existence of gods, they also lack belief in them. Hence, the definition is unnecessarily redundant. So I would prefer a definition that includes the notion of rejection of belief rather than mere lack of belief:
a person who rejects belief in the existence of gods
We don't normally think of people as atheists if they don't understand the concept of a god, but the common "lack of belief" definition leads people into pointless debates over whether babies and animals should be called atheists. This is sometimes called an "appeal to definition fallacy".
Last edited:
Well perhaps you are not correct. In 2022, the following held true:
- Religion-Based Crimes: There were 2,042 reported incidents based on religion. More than half of these (1,122) were driven by anti-Jewish bias. Incidents involving anti-Muslim (158) and anti-Sikh (181) sentiments remained at similar levels compared to 2021.
- LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021. These are largely based on religious teachings.
Anti-Atheism was described as a "key pillar of American religious identity" from the early settlements to todays conspiracy ideologies. Discrimination against atheists in the United States occurs in legal, personal, social, and professional contexts. Many American atheists compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, and LGBT communities. "Americans still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups," asserted Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association. So I put it to you that you are wrong about that, too -- many people DO seem to care what anyone else does NOT believe in.
Say he who tries to redefine whor other people believe or don't believe
Have you actually read the dictionary definition. Really doesn't matter because you've read and replied to the definition that i copied and pasted.
Sorry it doesn't agree with you but that's the way it goes when you make up BS
PureX
Veteran Member
Not to mention that it defines anything not a theist: oranges, bicycles, dead bodies ... That's a very, very poor definition indeed. So one must ask himself; "why be so deliberately and absurdly vague?" And the answer is pretty clear. It's so the "atheist" by this definition never has state or defend their own position while they attack everyone else's.
Something is better than nothing. But honesty would be even better, still. As every atheist I've ever encountered "believed in" a whole range if anti-religious and anti-theist ideals even as they so persistently claimed to be "unbelievers".
There are many individual concepts of God, but that's fodder for theological debate. Not for the theism debate. Atheists are by definition rejecting a philosophical proposition: that God/gods (by whatever concept) exist in a way that effects our experience of existence. (Otherwise the whole proposal would be irrelevant.)
There are very few humans beyond newborns and toddlers that are not aware of this basic proposition. Meaning that they are either in agreement with it (theists), in disagreement with it (atheists), or they are withholding determination (this is very rare, but still possible, I suppose).
And degreees of surety have nothing to do with any of this simply because the labels relate to the IDEA PROPOSED, not to the degree of surety any of us holds in relation to our response to the proposal. Thus; our "belief" is irrelevant.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
As far as I can tell; I am, yes.
I’m sure that question isn’t posed to me. I do not “demonise”; especially not learning.
Humbly,
Hermit
I don't define myself by what I don't believe. Quite the opposite.
I don't believe in leprechauns, dragons or little green men from Mars, either, but these don't "define" me or have any particular effect on my thoughts, behavior or world-view.
Lack of belief implies no god concept.
I tend to avoid "disbelief." It's ambiguous.
Last edited: