Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[S.A.M.]

The atheist perspective in history is overwhelmingly one of objection to theistic claims, and is not a religion or belief system in its own right.

For example? Could you give me a timeline of this atheist perspective and some examples of their objections?

 

[Cris]

sam,

"The atheist perspective in history is overwhelmingly one of objection to theistic claims, and is not a religion or belief system in its own right."

For example? Could you give me a timeline of this atheist perspective and some examples of their objections?

Why? What do you think is the alternative if this were not true?

 

[Gustav]

For example? Could you give me a timeline of this atheist perspective and some examples of their objections?

easy

god a/god b/god xyz/ god abc​

no god/no god/no god/no god​

 

[Cris]

Nice.

 

[iceaura]

So you unequivocally state that you do not believe in ANY gods, past present or future? Since atheism is the position that deities do not exist, that makes sense.

Future? I am supposed to be disbelieving in stuff nobody knows anything about?

For all I know, in the future some group of theists will come up with a deity - something that actually functions as a deity and fits the bill - that is believable.

I might myself.

Meanwhile, I have no problem stating that I do not believe in any of the deities so far presented to my experience - the past or present ones that I have heard about, or anything else of their general kind.

Hey if you can go by the if they are not theist they are atheist, I can go by, if they are not theist, they are immoral.

Upon second reading, are you still sure you want to say that? You genuinely perceive an equivalence there?

So my cat is an atheist?

I can't think of any way to know.

I think you are confusing yourself by using the term "an atheist". Use the modifier "atheistic", for more clarity. Is your cat atheistic? Most dogs seem to not be.

 

[swarm]

You say they are not atheists - I say they are - due to different definitions of what atheism is. If you define an atheist merely as "not theist" then they are atheist - whether they label themselves as that or not.

So you contend that white is merely anything not black? And you continue to hold this in spite of the other colors and shades of gray? I can only conclude you are being irrational.

I'm sorry but "not theist" is an insufficient definition for atheist.

You can not argue that one definition is wrong merely by stating another.

I showed, several times, how "not theist" causes people who are not theist and yet not atheist to get falsely labeled as atheists. What more exactly do you need to give up your madness?

Yet you have not provided any examples.

I actually listed a number of them which you are ignoring.

Name one. A single person that, by the definition provided, is neither atheist nor theist.

Sure. Me.

What reasons do they give?

I see no point in being an atheist or a theist.

1) The term "god" is undefined so it is unreasonable to decide for or against it.
1a) Attempts to define it all involve equally undefined or nonsense terms like "supernatural" or "creator of the universe."
1b) I am unconvinced that what might be the underlying is actually intelligible or something which can be dealt with any sort a cogent manner. Much like arguing if the surface of the sun feels hot, only worse.
1c) Theists seem uniformly delusional and I just can't take their claims seriously enough to be an atheist.

2) Being either a theist or an atheist has neither utility nor purpose.

3) Atheism is really just a form of "special pleading" on the part of the theist. Their is not an actual need for a special category of people "against" their fantasies of "god" any more than there is a need for a-unicornists. Merely being rational is sufficient.

Let's hear them and analyze them.

Knock yourself out.

Possibly - but whether one acknowledges the position or not does not alter what the actual position is.

When the position is membership in a group self identification is certainly a factor which must be considered. Certainly it weighs stronger than you arbitrarily lumping them in with atheists merely to avoid having to work harder of a valid definition.

A blind man might not know the path he has taken to reach a point - but he took it nonetheless.

Are you blind? Reason needs valid and true before it is acceptable.

And per the definition of "not theist = atheist" these people, by not holding the theistic belief are atheist, whether they refer to themselves as such or not.
Simple.

Wrong answers often are very simple.

only that they end up in the same place in this matter. They are two routes to the same end.

The path is as important as the destination in this case, nor do they necessarily end up in the same place.

Most importantly, the irrational person really believes his point where as the dishonest person does not.

We both agree on "no belief in the existence of god", I think, rather than a requirement to believe in non-existence?

I see no point in bringing "god" into it at all. that is playing the theist's game.

I merely refuse to allow unsupported claims to be accepted as factual. that's really the bottom line here. "God" is an entirely unsupported and undefined posit and as such can be dismissed out of hand without further consideration just like Qerg, Bloq, Zert and any other nonsense word the theist cares to get excited about.

Delusion is delusion.

But I disagree with you on an atheist only being someone who classifies theirself as such. Surely whatever definition applies to 'atheism', an atheist is merely someone to who atheism applies.

Atheism is an open club. It at best barely means anything. I would put self identification as a at least a necessary qualification. Remember rocks are technically not theists as well, and who could blame them?

 

[swarm]

Is your cat atheistic? Most dogs seem to not be.

Even I believe in Dog!

 

[S.A.M.]

easy

Hmm so you all want to stick to the same stuff you've been thinking for thousands of years with no change? Sure, but thats not a perspective, more like arrested development.

 

[Gustav]

yes sam
i must
the gods presented still possess the same basic attributes that are fallacious and contradictory. nothing new there. just the same old sophistry

i reject your god on both, conceptual and evidentiary grounds

oh
barbarism too

 

[S.A.M.]

just the same old sophistry

Ah I see you've enjoyed some of that education the monks dispersed among the non-religious.

 

[Cris]

sam,

Hmm so you all want to stick to the same stuff you've been thinking for thousands of years with no change? Sure, but thats not a perspective, more like arrested development.

As opposed to the theist who never learns that evidence is needed if progress is to be made. He just keeps churning out delusion after delusion.

 

[Gustav]

Ah I see you've enjoyed some of that education the monks dispersed among the non-religious.

yes
my ass still twitches thinking about dem saddhus

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

As opposed to the theist who never learns that evidence is needed if progress is to be made. He just keeps churning out delusion after delusion.

Yeah, I wonder, which one would you choose? The Piraha life, with its emphasis only on personal direct experience? Or the life you have now, the result of assumptions, hypotheses, dreams, mindless entertainment and the orgies of fiction?

 

[Gustav]

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not for atheism remember?

 

[Gustav]

non sequitur
i'll allow you an elaboration tho

 

[Sarkus]

So you contend that white is merely anything not black? And you continue to hold this in spite of the other colors and shades of gray? I can only conclude you are being irrational.

No - I contend that anything that is not black is a different colour or shade than black. While we have the word "non-black" to describe all colours/shades that aren't black, we have the term "atheism" to describe all people who aren't theists.

I'm sorry but "not theist" is an insufficient definition for atheist.

Again - this is nothing more than "Your definition is not correct because it is not the one I am using".

I showed, several times, how "not theist" causes people who are not theist and yet not atheist to get falsely labeled as atheists. What more exactly do you need to give up your madness?

No - you haven't shown diddly-squat.
You have shown how people who are not theist might not be atheist only according to YOUR definition. Again, this is nothing more than "You are wrong, I am right."
You have not shown why the initial definition is wrong or insufficient, merely state again and again that it is because it isn't the same as yours.

I actually listed a number of them which you are ignoring.

I answered each one in turn. Go back and re-read.

Sure. Me.

Lol! The definition provided is that an atheist does not hold to a belief in gods. To hold to a belief in gods = theism. Therefore an atheist is one who is not a theist. Are you a theist?
And you consider me to be irrational. :shrug:

I see no point in being an atheist or a theist.

It is irrelevant whether you use the label of atheist or not - you are such by dint of what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in.
Atheists, as proposed, do not have the belief in the existence of gods.
Do you? Yes or no? If Yes, you are theist. If not - atheist.

Your explaination details 2 things. Firstly your reasons not to be a theist.
Secondly, why you don't want to use the label atheist.

The second seems to put you outside the position of being an atheist.
But you are one. You just have chosen not to use the label.
No issue - but using the label does NOT alter whether the label applies.

When the position is membership in a group self identification is certainly a factor which must be considered. Certainly it weighs stronger than you arbitrarily lumping them in with atheists merely to avoid having to work harder of a valid definition.

There is no arbitrarily lumping by anything other than the definition: Do you hold a belief in gods or not?

Are you blind? Reason needs valid and true before it is acceptable.

I'm not talking about reason - I'm talking about end-position only.
Atheism as a position (where you do not hold belief in gods).

The path is as important as the destination in this case, nor do they necessarily end up in the same place.

In some respects, as it helps determine if people should really be at the position they are.
But in terms of labels, the position is enough. If you are there you can be nowhere else at that time.
Understanding the route the person takes merely helps in determining if they are at the destination they intended.

Most importantly, the irrational person really believes his point where as the dishonest person does not.

Agreed.

I see no point in bringing "god" into it at all. that is playing the theist's game.

No it's not. This is just your prejudice showing over the usage of a label. "Urgh! I don't want it to apply to me! I don't want to wear it!"
We are talking about a position on the existence of god... do you hold that position - that god exists? Yes or no?

I merely refuse to allow unsupported claims to be accepted as factual. that's really the bottom line here.

And you're an atheist, as defined in the OP. You're even one that Cris would say has actively considered the position of theism and rejected it - and are thus a passive atheist - end of story.
And if you disagree with that definition, please argue more than just "Your definition is wrong, mine is right".

"God" is an entirely unsupported and undefined posit and as such can be dismissed out of hand without further consideration just like Qerg, Bloq, Zert and any other nonsense word the theist cares to get excited about.

Yep - all good reasons for your atheism. Same as mine.

Atheism is an open club. It at best barely means anything. I would put self identification as a at least a necessary qualification. Remember rocks are technically not theists as well, and who could blame them?

At best it merely means "does not hold the belief that god exists". Rocks are technically not theists, no. I have no issue with restricting it to a human position.

So currently we have boiled this down to you merely not wanting the label "atheist" to apply to you, and would prefer a definition that does not include you. Only I'm fairly sure our positions are the same. Yet I consider myself an atheist - as would the OP.

 

[S.A.M.]

non sequitur
i'll allow you an elaboration tho

Atheism is the position of No. Of proving a negative. It goes nowhere.

Probably why the Piraha haven't moved very far from the animal kingdom.

 

[Gustav]

you must be tired
get some rest

/affectionate

 

[S.A.M.]

you must be tired
get some rest

/affectionate

No just busy doing many things

My point was that anyone trained to rely only on that which he could see would never have the imagination to dream of what could be

example:

After a close study of his arguments, the unanswered question is why Copernicus hit on the idea of a heliocentric system in the first place. He was contradicting all the respected authorities of his time while trying to enthrone mathematics as a further font of truth that could be believed. We can surely take it for granted that this was not as a result of his combing the ancient writers in search of enlightenment – especially as he read into them what he wanted to find. Neither was it the innate mathematical superiority of the model that attracted him as it was not any more accurate and not much simpler than the Ptolemaic alternative. His own stated reasons for wanting to improve the symmetry and elegance of the model were tripped up by the necessary mathematical consequences of needing a fit to the observed data. It seems as if he started from a simple archetype to which he found he had to add more and more convoluted enhancements. The original elegance of his solution lived on only in his imagination.