Your talking about atheist as opposed to atheism, but amounts to the same.It really doesn't.
It just means "without deity."
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your talking about atheist as opposed to atheism, but amounts to the same.It really doesn't.
It just means "without deity."
I presume by this you are asking me to say how I think "rejecting atheism" is different to affirming "theism"?I don’t suppose you’re going to tell us how you think they’re different, are you?
No, I'm talking about atheism. Atheist is the person who is without deity.Your talking about atheist as opposed to atheism, but amounts to the same.
Right you said, 'without deity" which I said is atheist. Maybe you can elaborate. Are you saying absence of belief? (I didn't want to go there)No, I'm talking about atheism. Atheist is the person who is without deity.
Don’t you think rejecting theism or rejecting deity is similar?
I see non-theism as compared to non-dualism. @crossfire used the term transtheism which is appropriate. Yes or no there is a god can be seen as a false dichotomy.Why anyone rejects atheism? It's simple. They already have belief in at least one god.
Transcending the question doesn't equate to rejection. It's just seeing the question as irrelevant and ignoring the commonly ticked answer boxes.I see non-theism as compared to non-dualism. @crossfire used the term transtheism which is appropriate. Yes or no there is a god can be seen as a false dichotomy.
atheism is impossible to be true. gods exist. so atheism is wrong.Inspired by another thread:
Why would anyone reject atheism? If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it? How can someone reject the failure to believe in a or any proposed deity?
Please discuss! And remember, this is NOT a venue for debate! Discussion ONLY!
What is the purpose or aim of human civilization under atheism?Inspired by another thread:
Why would anyone reject atheism? If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it? How can someone reject the failure to believe in a or any proposed deity?
Please discuss! And remember, this is NOT a venue for debate! Discussion ONLY!
Sounds like you have some wonky ideas about what “atheism” means.I presume by this you are asking me to say how I think "rejecting atheism" is different to affirming "theism"?
If I say "I don't disbelieve" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "I'm not sure" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "I believe it is impossible to know" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "who gives a flying ..." is that the same as saying "I believe"?
Well, no. A person who believes in a god that is everywhere believes in a god and therefore a theist and not an atheist.And that is without even discussing the nuances that people of different beliefs put on the word "theist".
It would be really nice to have a crystal clear taxonomy of beliefs but we don't and "theism" means different things to different people and even means "non-theism" to some people who are definitely not atheists either. Pantheism, for example, comes in theistic, atheistic and agnostic flavours.
And yet you still haven’t clearly said how you think they’re different.Rejecting atheism and affirming theism are definitely two different things. I believe.
Nope. Atheism isn't in any way as meaningful as Catholicism for example.
Yes. I find the whole theism/atheism construct not very useful. I'm transtheist.
What’s the purpose or aim of human civilization under non-smoking?What is the purpose or aim of human civilization under atheism?
Atheism isn’t necessarily the rejection of Catholicism. Atheism is just not accepting Catholicism (along with any other theistic beliefs). “Not accepting” runs the gamut from “what’s Catholicism?” through “I don’t find Catholicism convincing” to “Catholicism is absolutely, entirely wrong” and everything in between.How so? If Catholicism is meaningful, it’s rejection needs to be even more meaningful. No? Or I may not be following your point.
Is atheism compatible with any sort of purpose for human civilization?What’s the purpose or aim of human civilization under non-smoking?
Atheism is just not believing in any gods. If we want to narrow it down to explicit atheism, then it’s just saying “I’m not convinced” in relation to god-claims.
I suppose you could divide people’s worldviews into theistic (i.e. ones that include gods) and atheistic (i.e. ones that don’t), but atheism by itself doesn’t suggest any sort of purpose, except that it’s incompatible with purposes that require a god or gods.
I’m not sure I’d call atheism a “failure” at all.Atheism isn't "a failure to believe", so perhaps one good reason to reject it might be for the sake of honestly.
I look at it in terms of mental models or worldviews: we each have a mental model of the world where we try to understand what we see around us and make predictions about what will happen based on what we believe exists and how we believe these things behave.Atheism is the rejection of theistic possibility based on nothing. So perhaps another good reason to reject it might be because of it's deliberate and pointless dysfunction.
It’s not compatible with the purposes that require belief in a god or gods.Is atheism compatible with any sort of purpose for human civilization?