Why reject atheism?

[Pudding]

Why would anyone reject atheism? If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it?

Atheism:
(1) don't have the belief that at least one god exists. (Digression: mostly because haven't meet convincing evidence for the existence of at least one god)
(2) have the belief that no god exists, same as saying believe no god exists; probably same as believe all god doesn't exist; same as believe there is 0 god exists as real being.

My definition for atheism is (1), not (2). Though there is some people insists atheism must mean believe no god exists and all atheists believe no god exists.

It's not sure which definition of atheism is intended for your op.

 

[Jumi]

What advantage does Atheism have ?

Atheists will say, we don't believe in God, But yet atheists are keeping at lease 70% of the laws that were set down by God.
So why not just keep the other 30% ?

But anyway, What Advantage does Atheism have to offer.

Outside of becoming a lawless Society of people ?

If they're holding 70% of what you believe are laws of God, are they a lawless society?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sorry if you felt offended as that was not my purpose.

My understanding is that just as the physical sun provides our light so too the Spiritual Suns were the original source of morals and virtues.

My point is this: Although we may light a candle or use a torch or turn on a light, we are dependent on the existence of the physical sun. It is our true source of light and we are dependent on it but the sun is independent of us for its light.

So too, the Spiritual Suns, those Great Educators are like the Sun and were eminent in educating us morals and virtues which we have handed down from generation to generation.

They have been the true Source of our moral education we believe, if one reflects on their lives and teachings

There is no evidence for you "Spiritual Suns". There is no need to invoke a god when it comes to morals. And though Christians often think that Jesus was the originator of such concepts as the Golden Rule it does not take much research to find that was not the case. Morals exist independent of religious beliefs. If anything religious beliefs often make morals worse.

 

[Prestor John]

@Prestor John hey we found some common ground. That means that we can be friends now.

For sure!

At least until the next thread on homosexuality. xD

I can be friends with both homosexuals and those who support homosexuality.

I prefer arguing with friends!

 

[PureX]

This is nonsense, of course. Not accepting that an assertion is true doesn’t automatically mean accepting the opposite assertion.

Well, that isn't what I posted, though, is it. What I posted was that not accepting that an assertion is true is the equivalent of rejecting that assertion as false. Atheism is the rejection of the theistic assertion. And it's a rejection based on nothing.

“I’m not convinced you had cereal for breakfast” does not imply “I’m convinced that you didn’t have cereal for breakfast.”

What you believe, or what you are "convinced of" (or not convinced of) is not relevant to this discussion, as neither condition defines theism, or atheism. These are defined by accepted or rejected possibility, and by the effect of their respective practice, ... because they cannot be determined or defined by actual fact.

This is even more the case with assertions about gods, since they’re so often logically incoherent.

There is no reason I can think of why we should expect "god" to be logically coherent, since such logical coherence could not be determined by any ascertainable fact. Really, the only means we have of evaluating the "credibility" of theism is by it's practical effect. And that will mostly be a subjective determination that you nor I can impose on anyone else.

And rejecting an argument isn’t the same as rejecting its conclusion.

As far as I know, there has never been an argument for the existence of any specific God, presented. There are plenty of arguments for the possibility that a god or gods exist, but none that defined and determines that this specific one, does. In fact, I see no way that such an argument could even be presented, logically. As the common characteristics attributed to such an entity would be impossible for a human to validate.

Well, no. Atheism is just the umbrella term we use to cover anyone who is not a theist. That’s it.

And a lot of foolishness hides in that deliberate and dishonest ambiguity.

Since you seem to assume that rejecting the possibility of something doesn’t entail believing that it doesn’t exist, I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I would consider those two things to be equivalent.

You don't seem to understand that no one cares what you believe or don't believe. That's your own subjective choice. And it doesn't define theism nor atheism. Theism is a truth proposition that cannot be proven, nor disproven. Therefor it remains a logical possibility that we can choose to act on, or not. If you reject this possibility, then you are an atheist. If you accept this possibility you are a theist. HOW the theist chooses to accept and act on this possibility does not define theism. It only defines the theist. Just as how or why the atheist chooses to reject this possibility, or how he behaves as he does so, does not define atheism. It only defines that atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that isn't what I posted, though, is it. What I posted was that not accepting that an assertion is true is the equivalent of rejecting that assertion as false.

That is not true. Your logic is faulty. Not accepting that an assertion is true may be done simply because there is no enough evidence for that assertion. One may be undecided and need more evidence before accepting that assertion. That same person may just as easily reject the claim that the assertion is false for the same reason. You did not find a correct negative.

Atheism is the rejection of the theistic assertion. And it's a rejection based on nothing.

No, it is a "rejection" based on the fact that theists cannot support their claims. Your problem is that evidence wise you are accepting theism on "nothing". Actually you are accepting it on insufficient evidence. There is rather weak evidence for theism. But that evidence has been shown to be so defective it is all but worhless.

What you believe, or what you are "convinced of" (or not convinced of) is not relevant to this discussion, as neither condition defines theism, or atheism. These are defined by accepted or rejected possibility, and by the effect of their respective practice, ... because they cannot be determined or defined by actual fact.

There are not even any "possibility" arguments for a god. I have seen many flawed ones, but when the flaw is found the argument fails and in effect no longer exists. It appears that your claim is extremely flawed too.

There is no reason I can think of why we should expect "god" to be logically coherent, since such logical coherence could not be determined by any ascertainable fact. Really, the only means we have of evaluating the "credibility" of theism is by it's practical effect. And that will mostly be a subjective determination that you nor I can impose on anyone else.

So god can be an evil illogical being. Why bother to "believe" in such a god? How could one worship such a god? And some people do behave better because of theism, many people also behave badly because of their theism. I think that overall most people are descent. Good people can accredit their good acts to god and evil people will claim that they did their works because god ordered it. The actions of people are neutral, they neither aid nor harm the concept of theism.

As far as I know, there has never been an argument for the existence of any specific God, presented. There are plenty of arguments for the possibility that a god or gods exist, but none that defined and determines that this specific one, does. In fact, I see no way that such an argument could even be presented, logically. As the common characteristics attributed to such an entity would be impossible for a human to validate.

How would one even know if a god was "possible"? I can see that many people believe in a god but I have yet to see any support for a god that has any legs at all.

And a lot of foolishness hides in that deliberate and dishonest ambiguity.
You don't seem to understand that no one cares what you believe or don't believe. That's your own subjective choice. And it doesn't define theism nor atheism. Theism is a truth proposition that cannot be proven, nor disproven. Therefor it remains a logical possibility that we can choose to act on, or not. If you reject this possibility, then you are an atheist. If you accept this possibility you are a theist. HOW the theist chooses to accept and act on this possibility does not define theism. It only defines the theist. Just as how or why the atheist chooses to reject this possibility, or how he behaves as he does so, does not define atheism. It only defines that atheist.

Pretty much just word salad that does not justify the belief in a god in any way at all. So why believe in a god?

 

[Faithofchristian]

If they're holding 70% of what you believe are laws of God, are they a lawless society?

Did I say that, of course I didn't.

Maybe if you had payed attention.

I said if Aheists does not want any laws, that pertain to God, seeing how every law that man has, pertains to God's laws, in some way or another.
So to take away laws, that would lead to a lawless Society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

seeing how every law that man has, pertains to God's laws, in some way or another.

This is only your perspective. It would be odd for an atheist to think that anything came from a god.

 

[siti]

Sounds like you have some wonky ideas about what “atheism” means.

Well, no. A person who believes in a god that is everywhere believes in a god and therefore a theist and not an atheist.

Agnosticism is about a separate but related question. It’s not some sort of midpoint between theism and atheism.

And yet you still haven’t clearly said how you think they’re different.

I didn't say anything about what atheism means at all did I?

But if you need a definition then an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in deity (any deity, any kind of deity). Right?

OK - so if I reject that position and say, well I'm not sure - there might be a god of some kind, I just don't know...does that make me a theist? Of course it doesn't. So the suggestion that rejecting atheism is the same as accepting theism is wrong.

And if I make the even stronger statement that I don't think it is possible to be sure whether or not some kind of deity exists, I am still not a theist and I am not an atheist either. Right? In fact that would really be an agnostic position - the idea that it is not possible to be sure one way or the other. I agree this is not a half-way house between atheism and theism - I never suggested it was - but it certainly proves that one could reject atheism and still not be a theist. Right?

And I could be a humanist who simply couldn't care less whether or not a god exists because either way, human destiny is in our own hands. I am neither a theist nor an atheist - I just don't think arguing about the existence or non-existence of god is worth the effort. Right?

So there are at least a handful of ways in which one could reject atheism and not accept theism - and that's assuming that by theism we mean belief in any kind of deity.

Then there are numerous ways of believing in a God that are not "theism" in the traditional sense of a personal, intervening, miracle-working, prayer-answering creator and redeemer of iniquitous mankind...

I could be a deist, a pantheist, a panentheist...etc. etc...none of these subscribe to a traditional theistic sky-daddy kind of deity and scientific or naturalistic pantheists reject the idea of "God" as an entity altogether - they just believe that the universe itself is worthy of awe and respect (if not veneration and almost certainly not worship).

You can polarize the spectrum of beliefs and oppose them all by imputing a false similitude to all of them based on the least credible parts of one if you like - if it makes you feel better. But ideas that have exercised the imaginations of our ancestors for longer than we have been a species deserve more attention and respect than that in my opinion - even if we do know that they are wrong.

 

[Milton Platt]

I feel that atheism is an answer that is faith based, "not god" being a bit presumptuous.

Not all atheists say there is no god. Many if not most simply are taking the null hypothesis and saying they don't believe the god claims they have been presented with because they see the evidence as lacking. There is no reason to believe in any of the thousands of gods until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant that belief.

 

[idav]

Not all atheists say there is no god. Many if not most simply are taking the null hypothesis and saying they don't believe the god claims they have been presented with because they see the evidence as lacking. There is no reason to believe in any of the thousands of gods until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant that belief.

The atheist question is about belief, it is the agnostic question that gets into knowledge and sufficient evidence. Null belief is neither atheist or theist but belief is different from asking about knowldge.

To give an example say a jury is asked to make a decision. There are there are three possibilities guilty, not guilty and hung jury when the jury is asked what they choose to believe.

 

[Milton Platt]

The atheist question is about belief, it is the agnostic question that gets into knowledge and sufficient evidence. Null belief is neither atheist or theist but belief is different from asking about knowldge.

To give an example say a jury is asked to make a decision. There are there are three possibilities guilty, not guilty and hung jury when the jury is asked what they choose to believe.

Null belief is based on lack of knowledge.

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is only your perspective. It would be odd for an atheist to think that anything came from a god.

Ok, now if your right, Then answer this,
As to why do Atheists let thing's bother them that pertains to a God that Atheists do not believe in. So why would you, let something bother you, if you don't believe in it.

To attack something you do not believe in, That's the most ridiculous thing ever.

It might be reasonable if Atheists believed in God, and then attack. But to attack God, that you do not believe in, Now that's questionable.
And ridiculous to say the least.
You can't be serious. Go Figure

 

[Milton Platt]

Ok, now if your right, Then answer this,
As to why do Atheists let thing's bother them that pertains to a God that Atheists do not believe in. So why would you, let something bother you, if you don't believe in it.
You can't be serious. Go Figure

I would like to answer this, although I am sure Penguin will as well. Your question is ill-conceived. If Christians (or other religions) did not go around proselytizing, and did not attempt to inject their religious viewpoints into laws and public classrooms, and they paid taxes on the land, buildings, and profits they make like the rest of us have to, then there would be no reason to bother with them at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Religions rake in billions every year and are not required to have any accountability to the public.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There's still people who believe in and worship all of those Gods you mentioned, fyi.

Yes, well there are still people who believe all sorts of things. I've stopped being surprised at what some people are capable of believing. As the White Queen says to Alice (in Wonderland) who remarked "one can't believe impossible things," replied, "in my youth, I sometimes imagined as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast." Elvis lives!

 

[Faithofchristian]

I would like to answer this, although I am sure Penguin will as well. Your question is ill-conceived. If Christians (or other religions) did not go around proselytizing, and did not attempt to inject their religious viewpoints into laws and public classrooms, and they paid taxes on the land, buildings, and profits they make like the rest of us have to, then there would be no reason to bother with them at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Religions rake in billions every year and are not required to have any accountability to the public.

You know, you just proved my point, Why you let things bother you, if you do not believe in it.
You just proved my point, to let something bother you, is not only ridiculous but also unlogical, and a weak.

Either you believe there is God and you have guilt or your attacking a God that you do not believe in, which is Ridiculous to say the least.
I can see it now, for someone to come up and ask, What are you doing, Oh i'm attacking this because I do not believe in it. But why if you don't believe in it, Oh because I'm ridiculous And don't know any better, that's why.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Why would anyone reject atheism?

Because we have the freedom to do so, above all other reasons, which I'll proceed to in short order.

If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it?

Atheists don't consider certain philosophical arguments for a higher reality, or acknowledge the problems that materialism has in standing alone. Besides, since those of us with religion accept it's true- we can well ask the atheist why they reject it.

How can someone reject the failure to believe in a or any proposed deity?

Because materialism alone has a lot of problems, so that acceptance of any higher reality is arguably expedient. We haven't resolved the questions of human worth, etc on a materialist ground- and it remains to be seen if we can.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, well there are still people who believe all sorts of things. I've stopped being surprised at what some people are capable of believing. As the White Queen says to Alice (in Wonderland) who remarked "one can't believe impossible things," replied, "in my youth, I sometimes imagined as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast." Elvis lives!

I don't see what's so ridiculous or impossible about the revival of ancient polytheistic religions. What's amazing is that people act like the Neo Pagan movement doesn't exist. How do you go decades of living in a liberal city in North America and never hear about it?

Polytheistic reconstructionism - Wikipedia

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How so? If Catholicism is meaningful, it’s rejection needs to be even more meaningful. No? Or I may not be following your point.

No, nothing like that. Perhaps I can try and be clearer, using Catholic belief purely as an example.

What I mean is that Catholicism has specific meaning. Whether it be Trinitarianism, or belief in the infallibility of ecumenical councils , or transubstantiation, there is a set of beliefs under the umbrella of 'Catholicism'. People who are Catholics are (broadly) declaring belief in them. People who are not Catholics are not necessarily rejecting Catholicism at all.

Atheists may be rejecting God, I suppose, although personally I find that hard to understand. But atheism itself isn't rejection of God. It's a lack of theism. There are millions of belief systems I'm ignorant of, and I wouldn't claim to be able to prove there is no God. I've actively rejected those religions I've explored. But my atheism is almost nothing. It's just that I'm not a theist. Some might call that agnosticism, but I think agnostic atheist (or even implicit atheist) is a more accurate description.

Mind you, rejection of certain philosophies and beliefs commonly associated with atheism (say, materialism) seems entirely possible and meaningful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because we have the freedom to do so, above all other reasons, which I'll proceed to in short order.



Atheists don't consider certain philosophical arguments for a higher reality, or acknowledge the problems that materialism has in standing alone. Besides, since those of us with religion accept it's true- we can well ask the atheist why they reject it.



Because materialism alone has a lot of problems, so that acceptance of any higher reality is arguably expedient. We haven't resolved the questions of human worth, etc on a materialist ground- and it remains to be seen if we can.

Hi mate, selfishly I'd be interested in your take on my points above (ie. The post preceding this one).