Why reject atheism?

[siti]

As in Bertrand Russell's example of a Ming teapot orbiting in the rings of Saturn -- the only honest approach, according to your logic, would be to claim agnostic. You cannot possibly make an assertion either way, especially now that some craft originating on this planet have been there!

Well this is just a preposterous argument! It is perfectly obvious that the Ming teapot is invisible - and the actual existence of an invisible Ming teapot orbiting Saturn is proven by the very fact that we can't see it! Agnostic indeed! Poppycock! Excuse me one moment whilst I go and feed the equally invisible moncupator that lives in the back of my fridge. (Tee hee!)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But there's where you're BOTH wrong!

It's a Flying (Ming) Saucer!

 

[siti]

But there's where you're BOTH wrong!

It's a Flying (Ming) Saucer!

What saucery is this?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What saucery is this?

 

[siti]

View attachment 20789

Ah yes! I'd forgotten about Pan and Atlas - I have obviously misinterpreted media reports and was under the impression that their bulging equatorial ridges were composed of "ring" material - now I know it was actually made of "Ming" material. I always knew there was something off about that Bertrand Russell character! Especially when he told his old mate Whitehead he was off his rocker for writing Process and Reality...but I digress...We'll find yer blasted teapot yet you heathen unbeliever you!

 

[atanu]

I just can never get this idea of "believing in atheism" (or the thread's topic, rejecting atheism). Atheism is not a thing. Theism is a thing - a belief in the existence of god(s) and what that believed existence requires of the believer. Atheism is not having any such a belief, and therefore having nothing required as a result.

No doubt everybody's heard this before, but not collecting stamps is not a hobby, collecting them is. Atheism is not a belief, theism is.

On the topic of the thread, "why reject atheism," what if it were a question of not collecting stamps. Should ordinary folks be wary of the heinous fellow who has no interest in wasting time, energy and money hunting down a rare, unfranked One-Penny Black?

What are you defending in this post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*mod delete*

“You don’t need to reject the existence of gods to be an atheist” does not equal “no atheists reject the existence of any gods.”

 

[Zosimus]

“You don’t need to reject the existence of gods to be an atheist” does not equal “no atheists reject the existence of any gods.”

Nonsense.

If theist is defined as a person who believes in one single God, the creator of the universe AND
if atheist is defined as a person who is without such a belief.

Then Evangelicalhumanist is not an atheist, full stop.

It is not that he lacks such a belief but rather that he spends an inordinate amount of time attacking religion, religious belief, and those who have such beliefs with all the zeal and dogmatism that one might expect from the most devout of the faithful.

Then he denies his jihad by mislabeling himself.

 

[wandering peacefully]

We are not born atheist, we are born ignorant - which is what lack of knowledge implies - if you are self-identifying as an atheist simply because you lack knowledge of any god(s) then I think (as I may have suggested once or twice already) that makes atheism an irrelevance. And if you are so keen to affirm your "natural born state" may we assume that you still crap in your pants and snuggle up to your mother's breast when you're hungry? Of course we (at least most of us) don't want to remain in infantile ignorance - the sad part is that so many of us, having barely escaped abject ignorance by the time we die, spend a significant proportion of our lives proclaiming that we actually know something about it...but all that "ignorantist" talk aside, atheism is not ignorance.

My my, a little touchy are we? I didn't say anything about ignorance. That was you. Or maybe you were just trying to be funny and I am ignorant of your sense of humor.

I said we were born with no knowledge OR belief in gods. If the idea wasn't created and spread by men, we would never become theists. Atheist (no belief in gods) is the way we are born naturally. It takes indoctrination of some kind at some point to become a theist. Atheists still lack belief in gods even when they become talented enough to use a cup and a toilet.

Just because one is taught about gods does not mean one become less ignorant than when born. Do you still poo poo in your pants?

And I agree with you that many a life is wasted pretending to know answers to the unknowable. Only people who know they can't know really know anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense.

If theist is defined as a person who believes in one single God, the creator of the universe AND
if atheist is defined as a person who is without such a belief.

Then Evangelicalhumanist is not an atheist, full stop.

That's a rather wonky definition of "theist." There are more flavours of theism than just classical monotheism.

It is not that he lacks such a belief but rather that he spends an inordinate amount of time attacking religion, religious belief, and those who have such beliefs with all the zeal and dogmatism that one might expect from the most devout of the faithful.

So...

- you agree that he lacks belief in gods.
- you accept that a person who lacks belief in gods is an atheist.
- you refuse to accept that he's an atheist.

Go through your reasoning again. I'm sure that if you think hard enough, you'll spot your mistake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are not born atheist, we are born ignorant - which is what lack of knowledge implies - if you are self-identifying as an atheist simply because you lack knowledge of any god(s) then I think (as I may have suggested once or twice already) that makes atheism an irrelevance.

Atheism is irrelevant in and of itself. The only reason it's significant at all is that it stands out from all the background theism in our society.

And if you are so keen to affirm your "natural born state" may we assume that you still crap in your pants and snuggle up to your mother's breast when you're hungry? Of course we (at least most of us) don't want to remain in infantile ignorance - the sad part is that so many of us, having barely escaped abject ignorance by the time we die, spend a significant proportion of our lives proclaiming that we actually know something about it...but all that "ignorantist" talk aside, atheism is not ignorance.

Every person - you and me included - is as ignorant as a baby about the vast majority of gods humanity has ever believed in. We can't form an opinion on concepts we've never even contemplated; we can't contemplate concepts we've never even heard of. Most of humanity's god-concepts died off with the cultures that worshipped them or with the lone person who never told anyone about the individualized god that only they believed in.

 

[Zosimus]

That's a rather wonky definition of "theist." There are more flavours of theism than just classical monotheism.

Wonky definition? It's the definition provided at dictionary.com

You do know how to use reference works such as dictionaries, don't you?

So...

- you agree that he lacks belief in gods.

I do not.

- you accept that a person who lacks belief in gods is an atheist.

I do.

- you refuse to accept that he's an atheist.

Exactly.

Go through your reasoning again. I'm sure that if you think hard enough, you'll spot your mistake.

No, I think YOU need to understand the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wonky definition? It's the definition provided at dictionary.com

You do know how to use reference works such as dictionaries, don't you?

Oh my!!! A person that rejects Wikipedia and then tries to rely on a dictionary as being authoritative. That is rather amazing since Wikipedia is far more authoritative than any dictionary.

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, in English, we say a person who rather than a person that.

Second, had I quoted Wiktionary, I might have agreed with you. After all, Wiktionary is put together by a team of unpaid volunteers who are experts at nothing. Dictionary.com, however, is drawn from the Random House unabridged dictionary, which is constantly being updated by teams of expert lexographers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, in English, we say a person who rather than a person that.

Second, had I quoted Wiktionary, I might have agreed with you. After all, Wiktionary is put together by a team of unpaid volunteers who are experts at nothing. Dictionary.com, however, is drawn from the Random House unabridged dictionary, which is constantly being updated by teams of expert lexographers.

First off there is nothing wrong with "a person that":

Pronouns for People and Animals: "Who" or "That"?

You are not an authority, you should at least look up your claims when it comes to the English language.

Second you earlier put down Wikipedia, we were not discussing wiktionary. Wikipedia is put together by volunteers, usually well educated and their work is continually checked. When fact checked Wikipedia is very reliable. It is checked far more often than Random House checks their work. Your standards are inconsistent. And dictionaries are notoriously unreliable when it comes to certain terms. Their scientific terms are wrong quite often, but that is because they give the common usage of words, which is frequently wrong when one is using terms on a scientific basis.

You were caught with your pants down. It is best to simply admit your errors and move on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wonky definition? It's the definition provided at dictionary.com

Not quite:

theism
[thee-iz-uh m]
noun

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
   
   
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

the definition of theist

You're trying to shrug off definition #2.

You do know how to use reference works such as dictionaries, don't you?

Yes; do you?

I do not.

There are two ways that you couod do this:

- you could believe that does not lack belief in a god or gods (i.e. he believes in at least one god; IOW, he's a theist).
- you could neither accept that he lacks belief in gids nor that he doesn't lack belief in them (i.e. you're undecided as to whether he's an atheist).

Since you've said you think he's not an atheist, I'm inclined to set aside that second option, but since your position doesn't seem logically coherent anyhow, maybe it's not wise of me to assume logical coherence on this point.

No, I think YOU need to understand the argument.

All I have to understand your arguments is what you tell me. Based on what you've said, you're contradicting yourself. If what you've said doesn't match your intended meaning, then the problem is yours to solve.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYONE:

This is in the Interfaith Discussion forum...so stop trying to debate, and stop insulting each other.

If you want a debate, or to go off on tangents, go make your own thread in an appropriate forum.

If you want to insult each other, take it to personal messaging.

 

[Subduction Zone]

JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYONE:

This is in the Interfaith Discussion forum...so stop trying to debate, and stop insulting each other.

If you want a debate, or to go off on tangents, go make your own thread in an appropriate forum.

If you want to insult each other, take it to personal messaging.

Sorry, I sometimes forget when I am not on a debate page.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just can never get this idea of "believing in atheism" (or the thread's topic, rejecting atheism). Atheism is not a thing. Theism is a thing - a belief in the existence of god(s) and what that believed existence requires of the believer. Atheism is not having any such a belief, and therefore having nothing required as a result.

No doubt everybody's heard this before, but not collecting stamps is not a hobby, collecting them is. Atheism is not a belief, theism is.

On the topic of the thread, "why reject atheism," what if it were a question of not collecting stamps. Should ordinary folks be wary of the heinous fellow who has no interest in wasting time, energy and money hunting down a rare, unfranked One-Penny Black?

What are you defending in this post?

I am not "defending" anything. Theists consistently wish to make atheism into a "belief system." It is not, and I am trying to make people understand why it is not. Intercourse and masturbation are both examples of sexual activity. Doing neither is not an example of sexual activity. Rape and murder are both examples of crimes. Avoiding raping and murdering is not an example of some other interpretation of crime.

Those theists who state -- with great insistence -- that "atheism is a form of faith belief" but that simply indicates that they have little understanding of what "faith belief" really means.

Every religion has its "creed." They're not all called creeds, but the point is that every religion has things that are required of you for being a believer in that religion. What, exactly, is required of you in NOT believing in something? The answer is -- nothing at all.

The other problem is that theists never ask atheists what ought to be the most obvious question of all: "Well, if you don't believe in God and the demands of (whatever) religion, what DO you believe?" I could answer that question, if anybody cared to ask it. I could tell you how my beliefs inform my life, my morality, how I deal with other people, how I see my future, even how I see the meaning of my own life. But they never do ask that, in threads like this. They merely keep insisting that atheism is a faith belief.

Why not ask them why they do that, instead of asking me what I'm defending. After all, I've been completely open about everything I've said.

 

[Zosimus]

First off there is nothing wrong with "a person that":

Pronouns for People and Animals: "Who" or "That"?

You are not an authority, you should at least look up your claims when it comes to the English language.

You're wrong. I am an authority. I should also point out the irony of a person correcting someone's grammar in run-on sentences.

You may not grasp this explanation, and that's fine. I'm going to make it anyway and just leave you to understand or not.

Let's take a simple sentence:

That red thing over there is the sweater of a girl that I saw yesterday.
What did the speaker see yesterday? Was it the sweater or the girl?
Educated people will reason that the person is referring to the sweater because, after all, he would have used who to refer to the person whereas perhaps the context will lead the person to believe that he must be referring to the girl.

Of course, the entire problem is solved if the speaker simply uses the word who.

Even more egregious, daily I hear sentences such as this one:

Karen is a girl from New York that I met at NYU.
By context, the person probably means who but the word that is directly connected to New York, leading to ambiguity.

Now you may argue that the sentence you used contained no ambiguity. Granted. However, it's bad form. It's like someone pointing a gun at his face and pulling the trigger. Maybe, it doesn't go off because it's not loaded. Fine. It's still bad form.

Second you earlier put down Wikipedia, we were not discussing wiktionary. Wikipedia is put together by volunteers, usually well educated and their work is continually checked. When fact checked Wikipedia is very reliable. It is checked far more often than Random House checks their work. Your standards are inconsistent. And dictionaries are notoriously unreliable when it comes to certain terms. Their scientific terms are wrong quite often, but that is because they give the common usage of words, which is frequently wrong when one is using terms on a scientific basis.

So now you're comparing Wikipedia to Random House dictionary? You do realize that these things are not really comparable, don't you?