Why reject atheism?

[Zosimus]

Not quite:

the definition of theist

Two major mistakes with your rebuttal (so-called). The first mistake is that my post clearly said: "If theist is defined as a person who believes in one single God, the creator of the universe..."

You do know the meaning of the word "if," don't you?

The second mistake you are making is that we are talking about the definition of a theist and you are quoting the part related to theism.

You're trying to shrug off definition #2.

No, I'm not shrugging off definition #2. I am using a definition of theist that is close to the definition of theism contained in definition #1, and I am couching it with the word "if." And you are saying that it's wonky.

There is nothing wonky about looking at the first definition in a dictionary and saying, "If we accept this definition then..."

- 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).

His beliefs have nothing to do with God. He spends his life ranting against religion. Go and read some of his posts about parents whose child died because they trusted that it was all God's will and that God doesn't make mistakes. He doesn't say anything about how God doesn't exist; rather he spends his time railing against people and religion.

- 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).

I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in gids.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

I agree that atheism is not a belief system. You, however, have a belief system that is not atheism. Then you try to pass it off as atheism. It's intelectually dishonest.

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.

I think it is you who does not understand what faith is. Everything that everyone does is based on faith. If I didn't believe that I could learn something, I would never try to learn. If I didn't believe that my employer would pay me, then I would not work for it. Every person who buys the medication prescribed by a doctor is taking a leap of faith.

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.

Yes, now we come to the crux of it. You are anti-religion. God is irrelevant to such a discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.


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

Actually I cited an authority. And your poor strawman only demonstrates an inability to understand context.

I am not debating on a non-debate page.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think it is you who does not understand what faith is. Everything that everyone does is based on faith. If I didn't believe that I could learn something, I would never try to learn. If I didn't believe that my employer would pay me, then I would not work for it. Every person who buys the medication prescribed by a doctor is taking a leap of faith.

You're confusing justified and unjustified belief, and calling them both faith. They are distinct and radically different modes of thought.

Many people consider unjustified belief a logical error and try to avoid it. Such people think differently from those willing to believe on insufficient evidence. Not the same thing even if you refer to them by the same word.

You might have two daughters and name them both Faith, but that doesn't make them the same person. All it does is cause ambiguity and confusion when referring to either of them..

 

[atanu]

I am not "defending" anything. ...

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.....

Maybe nothing at all, from your POV. But that does not gel with tons of explanation. Some even become aggressive on this point. A 'nothing at all' produces a lot of reaction, I would say.

To me a rejection of a proposition 'x' will mean first understanding 'x' and then arriving at a stand that is counter positive of 'x'. But as I said earlier I will not debate the point.

 

[siti]

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.

Well no - and again you have missed the point - atheism stands out from background of belief in any of the gods that are believed in - not just theism.

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.

Now that (your comment) is irrelevant. Ignorance of something that has no relevance doesn't matter at all. But ignorance of the "background" you claim your lack of belief to stand out from by self-identifying as "an atheist" is a rather silly thing to claim quite frankly. But there you go!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well no - and again you have missed the point - atheism stands out from background of belief in any of the gods that are believed in - not just theism.

Understand that I - like many other people - use the term “theism” to mean belief in gods of any description.

Now that (your comment) is irrelevant. Ignorance of something that has no relevance doesn't matter at all. But ignorance of the "background" you claim your lack of belief to stand out from by self-identifying as "an atheist" is a rather silly thing to claim quite frankly. But there you go!

The theistic background in any given society will only be made up of a small subset of the wide spectrum of theism. No one person is even aware of all of humanity’s gods, to say nothing of rejecting all of them.

 

[siti]

Understand that I - like many other people - use the term “theism” to mean belief in gods of any description.


The theistic background in any given society will only be made up of a small subset of the wide spectrum of theism. No one person is even aware of all of humanity’s gods, to say nothing of rejecting all of them.

Right - so you redefine a concept that (by your own admission) you know almost nothing about in terms that accord with your extremely limited knowledge of the subject just so you can reject it? Like I said - that's not atheism, its just plain old ignorance. I am absolutely certain this is not the position that any genuinely freethinking atheist would take. Atheism is much more than what you claim and there are many atheists who can and do make genuinely cogent - even compelling anti-religious and anti-belief arguments that can help people to reason on the matter and (hopefully) help to remove the pernicious burden of blind credulity that has blinkered humanity for far too long already. Unfortunately, you haven't. You have reduced atheism to an irrelevant absurdity and in the absence of any requirement for genuine knowledge (in your argument), every bit as much a matter of faith as any religious belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree that atheism is not a belief system. You, however, have a belief system that is not atheism. Then you try to pass it off as atheism. It's intelectually dishonest.

Well that's interesting. But if you are going to accuse me of "having a belief system that is not atheism," that I'm trying to "pass off as atheism," would you care to tell me what that is?

I think it is you who does not understand what faith is. Everything that everyone does is based on faith. If I didn't believe that I could learn something, I would never try to learn. If I didn't believe that my employer would pay me, then I would not work for it. Every person who buys the medication prescribed by a doctor is taking a leap of faith.

I have said all of this thousands of times on this forum and on others. I understand it well. This is a large part of what it means to be human, and I've never come even close to denying it.

Yes, now we come to the crux of it. You are anti-religion. God is irrelevant to such a discussion.

No, I am not "anti-religion." I am anti- everything that pretends to be a truth that commands anyone to behave in any way whatever, but that is backed up by nothing but supposedly "sacred scripture." That's the stuff that was written by humans, but is pretended to be inspired by God. And I use the word "pretended" very advisedly. Read all the "scripture" you can find in the world (and there is a lot!), and tell me that all of it was inspired by the same God.

I am not "anti-religion." I'm pro-thinking and religion far too often rejects thinking if it doesn't conform to dogma.
I am not "anti-religion," I'm pro-caring. Religion far too often wants to "correct" people, rather than love them.
God is not "irrelevant." Every God that I've seen described is, if you look at the world, absent from the world.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

It's like this.

You want to believe there is no god, sure fine, your opinion. Beliefs are opinions, and that's fine. Join the agnostics and those who hate God (maltheists and antitheists).

But from my experience, they tell me they "know" God isn't real.

Besides being annoyingly arrogant about one's own knowledge, it's basically insulting to anyone who does have religion like saying they are all idiots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that atheism is not a belief system. You, however, have a belief system that is not atheism. Then you try to pass it off as atheism. It's intelectually dishonest.

"Atheism" is a term that covers every belief system that does not include belief in any gods.

Are you saying that @Evangelicalhumanist believes in gods, or are you operating from a flawed understsnding of what atheism is?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's like this.

You want to believe there is no god, sure fine, your opinion. Beliefs are opinions, and that's fine. Join the agnostics and those who hate God (maltheists and antitheists).

But from my experience, they tell me they "know" God isn't real.

Besides being annoyingly arrogant about one's own knowledge, it's basically insulting to anyone who does have religion like saying they are all idiots.

Are you also insulted by Muslims, Hindus, etc?
They're telling you your definition of God is incorrect also, right?

An agnostic atheist is merely saying they see no reason to believe.

 

[wandering peacefully]

An atheist lacks belief in gods.

They see no evidence in the positive which is compelling enough to believe gods exist.

I would like to see how many atheists on this site say "I know there is no god." Or "I hate gods" or "I am mad at god so I don't believe in one."

It is only religionists who describe atheists with these ideas.

This site should be a good representation of all atheists out there. So if any atheist disagrees with what I have said could explain why they feel differently than I do about this, it would be nice to hear why.


Most atheists lack belief in gods period. I am sure there are some who claim to be atheist who "hate god" but they are not really atheists. One cannot hate something they lack belief in. At least, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that way.

 

[ChristineM]

It's like this.

You want to believe there is no god, sure fine, your opinion. Beliefs are opinions, and that's fine. Join the agnostics and those who hate God (maltheists and antitheists).

But from my experience, they tell me they "know" God isn't real.

Besides being annoyingly arrogant about one's own knowledge, it's basically insulting to anyone who does have religion like saying they are all idiots.

As opposed to non believers being told by believers that they, (and their children) will burn for eternity in hell for not believing in the god they know, without shadow of doubt, is real?

That sort of insulting?

Yes i know your version of god doesn't exist for several reasons, not least is proof by exhaustion.

As opposed to being told i am annoyingly arrogant for voicing what has been shown, over ten thousand years by literally billions of people, be evidential?

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist lacks belief in gods.

They see no evidence in the positive which is compelling enough to believe gods exist.

I would like to see how many atheists on this site say "I know there is no god." Or "I hate gods" or "I am mad at god so I don't believe in one."

It is only religionists who describe atheists with these ideas.

This site should be a good representation of all atheists out there. So if any atheist disagrees with what I have said could explain why they feel differently than I do about this, it would be nice to hear why.


Most atheists lack belief in gods period. I am sure there are some who claim to be atheist who "hate god" but they are not really atheists. One cannot hate something they lack belief in. At least, it doesn't seem reasonable to think that way.

There are as many differences between atheists as there are atheists. Each is a unique person.

As you say, no atheist (by definition) can hate gods, but they may (or may not) have feelings (good or bad) towards theists

Im one those who considers the multitude of pieces of evidence shows no gods exist. See my post #294 for one such proof. Others include genetics, geology, human frailty, childhood leukemia, the mosquito, futility of prayer.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There are as many differences between atheists as there are atheists. Each is a unique person.

As you say, no atheist (by definition) can hate gods, but they may (or may not) have feelings (good or bad) towards theists

Im one those who considers the multitude of pieces of evidence shows no gods exist. See my post #294 for one such proof. Others include genetics, geology, human frailty, childhood leukemia, the mosquito, futility of prayer.

Yes, those are facts which would indicate that the god of the Abrahamic religions is a story and surely lends to lack of belief in it.

I think that is still different than affirming that "there are no gods". I don't personally think such a thing exists, but I also cannot claim as a fact that none exist anywhere. The evidence suggests not but I cannot know for sure.

It is arrogant as you say when theists claim as fact they know there is such a thing and proceed to tell others they are wrong for not believing the same things they do.

It can lead to a dislike of people such as those for sure. Especially if they effect your existence in reality in some negative way.

I was not trying to posit all atheists are the same. Just noting the prerequisite for all is "a lack of belief in gods".

After that it becomes herding cats.

 

[Quintessence]

*** REMINDER ***​

This thread is in Interfaith Discussion. We've noticed points where this thread has spun into a debate and would kindly request such conversations be taken to a new thread in Religious Debates or a similar area.