My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[iceaura]

What is the "you" that has knowledge enough to monitor the influx of knowledge coming in.

Your identity on this forum. Could be a bot, even - it's routine enough.

Everything is laid out already. I don't need to add anything, or create anything. It is what it is.

There are no such pre-ordained implications of the word "atheist" as you attempt to establish here. The issue of the motives of your attempts is immediate.
It "is" dishonest rhetorical technique by someone - you - with no intellectual integrity and an apparently corrupt agenda.

Because I don't think I need atheist approval, to define 'atheism'.

You don't get to define atheism to suit yourself. That's not a privilege you enjoy, in honest discussion on forums such as this.

My definitions basically state that atheists either disbelieve, lack belief in, or assert that there is no, God.

That's a lie. That's not the role of your "definitions", and you know better.

They added a new meaning to the word, to give themselves a better image.

"They" did not choose the word, or establish the grounds of the new meaning. "You" did.

I think atheists are in the process of doing the same thing. But as a gay person cannot escape the description of homo-sexual, a person who does not believe in God cannot escape the term atheist, and all its implications.

Just as.
And via the same ugly source, for the same ugly reasons - the corrupt agenda of people like you and your "descriptions".

But although they cannot completely escape - you have access to the resources of power, which finds you and those like you useful within the limits allowed by the institutions of brutality - they can (in the US so far) defy.

 

[DaveC426913]

My definitions basically state that atheists either disbelieve, lack belief in, or assert that there is no, God.

I see you omitted one, the critical one:

The definition you provided says:

[Atheism] is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Which is what we have been saying all along.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You don't get to define atheism to suit yourself. That's not a privilege you enjoy, in honest discussion on forums such as this.

Right. But I get to define the term "atheist", and have done so. If you think it's wrong, state why.

That's a lie. That's not the role of your "definitions", and you know better.

Did you not see the definitions I posted.?

"They" did not choose the word, or establish the grounds of the new meaning. "You" did.

My bad.

But although they cannot completely escape - you have access to the resources of power, which finds you and those like you useful within the limits allowed by the institutions of brutality - they can (in the US so far) defy.

What?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see you omitted one, the critical one:

The definition you provided says:


Which is what we have been saying all along.

Can you tell me the post number which contains this quote?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you tell me the post number which contains this quote?
Jan.

Every quoted passage contains a little up arrow next to the name of the quoted person in its header: "Jan Ardena said: (up arrow)". Click on the arrow in the post where I quoted you, and it will take you straight to the post. That's what its there for.

 

[Baldeee]

Have I ever said that ''God (actually) exists''?

You necessarily imply it every time you claim to "believe in" God.
The necessity of it follows from the impossibility of "believing in" something without also first believing that the something exists.

Here is a definition from the American Atheists site.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

1. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god

This is obvious, as theism is not the Affirmative belief that there is God.

Theism ceratinly includes the affirmative belief that there is a God (or gods), through the necessary implication detailed above.
But if you can give me an example of something you can "believe in" while not actually also believing that the something exists, then that will demonstrate that it is not a necessary implication, and I will happily retract the argument.

2 It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

This is now stating that THERE IS NO GOD, only the statement of there being a God. This is sneaking the assertion that there is no God, through the back door.
Probably to avoid explaining the implications that tag along with such a statement.

???
How is "rejection of the assertion that there are gods" in any way stating that "there is no God"?
The equivalence is your assumption, and it is erroneous: anyone who can not say whether God exists or not rejects the assertion that there are gods but does not go so far as to state that "there is no God".
You have been told this time and time and time again.
Is your misunderstanding deliberate?

My definitions basically state that atheists either disbelieve, lack belief in, or assert that there is no, God.

All of which, through the definitions you have tried to insist upon for "disbelief" and "lack", build in the assumption that God exists.
From a theist's position you might well want the existence of God to be assumed within the definition of the term "atheism", as it begs the question, and simply reinforces the theist position that God exists.
But the term should be understood independently of whether God actually exists or not, not loaded with unwarranted assumptions and inferences as you are doing.

3 Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

A belief system is so called, because of what it is, not what you want., or don't want it to be.

If a bad person wants to describe them self as good, it does nothing to aleviate the fact that they are a bad person (if they do bad things)

It is not a belief system.
It is the absence of a specific kind of belief system.

Believing in democracy might be considered a belief system... but not having that belief is itself not its own belief system.
The belief system of someone who does not have the belief in democracy might be belief in a dictatorship, or a monarchy.
If someone is wholly undecided on the matter they may have a belief system that does not touch on the matter of how a country is run etc.
Those would be the belief system, but "not democracy" is not a belief system per se.

If you want to call the absence of "belief in democracy" a belief system then it is a belief system that might contain no actual common belief among those that adhere to the "system", and the only thing they might have in common is the absence of "belief in democracy".

To most people this would therefore not be considered a belief system at all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see you omitted one, the critical one:

The definition you provided says:


Which is what we have been saying all along.

I didn't omitt it, otherwise you would have not been able to quote me saying it.

By the way, thanks for the heads up on the little arrow. It's very useful.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

But I get to define the term "atheist", and have done so.

No, you don't.

Did you not see the definitions I posted.?

And posted direct response.

If you think it's wrong, state why.

Already done - as stated, its function as deflecting strawman is purposeful, and dishonest.

But although they cannot completely escape - you have access to the resources of power, which finds you and those like you useful within the limits allowed by the institutions of brutality - they can (in the US so far) defy

What?

You can now, and it is an achievement, lie via single word questions.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't omitt it, otherwise you would have not been able to quote me saying it.

You omitted it when you summed up what you mean when you've been using the term:

My definitions basically state that atheists either disbelieve, lack belief in, or assert that there is no, God.

And you had to ask me to point out where you'd quoted this:

[Atheism] is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

So it's a pretty safe conclusion that no, you didn't realize you had inadvertently engineered the destruction of your own claim.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I'm not concerned with existence. You are.
I believe in God.

You assume existence. I am concerned that you have no good grounds for making that assumption.

I've made no such claim. It doesn't work like that.

You "believe in God", but you're not concerned about whether God actually exists. And your belief in God doesn't in any way follow from God being real. That's really quite irrational, Jan. But I understand that it's not about rationality for you.

Is this how you thought you were theist?

What? You want to talk about me again? When I was a theist I was pretty much like you. I just assumed that God existed, took it for granted and was convinced that I knew that God was real. But at some point my education and intellect got in the way of blind faith.

But God does not currently exist, as far as you can tell, which I suspect is the reason why you are an atheist.

The absence of a convincing argument or evidence for God's existence is rather a barrier to my signing up (again) as a theist, I admit.

Note that I didn't say you assert that God doesn't exist, but God doesn't actually exist, as far as you're aware.

You're stuck in that binary thinking mode again: either one asserts that God exists, or one asserts that God does not exist. But there is a middle ground: one can keep an open mind about the possibility of God. It's called agnosticism, and I'm an agnostic atheist.

You're the one who is making that mistake. I've implied no such thing.
I am a theist, a person who believes in God. That's all there is to it.

This is silly.

You'll have me believe that you live your live with faith in this God of yours, trust in Him, try to follow His teachings, venerate His sacred scriptures and on on, yet you have no belief regarding whether this God exists in reality or not.

Sorry, Jan, but I'm not buying it. If you believe in God, you also believe that your God is real. You can't have your "belief in" without the basic "belief that".

As an atheist, you are without God. That means you cannot really know anything about God.

If that's what it means, then it's a useless definition. I suggest you try to find a better one.

No evidence will suffice, simply because you are without God.

Well, at least that follows from your faulty claim that I can't know anything about God. The problem is, it is a conclusion that follows from a false premise.

You cannot commit to believing God exists, because, God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, and as such you are what is termed ''atheist''.

You're still trying to import the idea that God exists as an a priori assumption. You need to stop that if you want an honest discussion.

I cannot commit to believing that God exists because there's no good argument or evidence that God exists. The label "atheist" comes after that, not before.

If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, then explain what it is you believe.

I already laid it all out for your in detail in previous posts to this very thread. I see no need to repeat myself just because you like repeating yourself. The executive summary is this: maybe God exists; maybe it doesn't. I don't believe that God exists; I don't believe that God doesn't exist. This is because there's no conclusive evidence either way. I believe there are no good grounds for "believing in" God in the way you "believe in" God.

Or are you going to say you have no belief, that you simply allow the evidence to dictate what you believe?

I've already talked about that in a previous post, too. In the absence of conclusive evidence, I make an estimate of likelihood. I weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of arguments put by both sides, and reach a tentative conclusion or "belief", always keeping open the possibility that my own knowledge might change or that new evidence will come to light that makes it justifiable to revise my opinion.

If that is the case, then you should believe that God doesn't exist, because for you there is no evidence that God currently exists.

I've also talked about the state of the evidence before. It's not that there is no evidence that God is real. It's more that the evidence that has been offered is weak and unpersuasive. Moreover, there is a rather a lot of countering evidence that tends to point to the opposite conclusion.

Where have I equated belief with knowledge?

It's implicit in every statement you make about your belief. You say you aren't concerned about the question of existence. That can only be because you believe so strongly that the possibility of non-existence doesn't occur to you. In other words, you think you already know that God exists. You think that believing really hard is the same as knowing. But it really isn't.

So we can choose what we accept as evidence of something. Not very reliable.

You speak as if it's an individual choice as to what amounts to good evidence or flawed evidence of a thing. In fact, there was been a lot of discussion about what is and isn't good evidence. But even if you're not aware of scholarly discussion on the matter, a lot of people still manage to reach a reasonable group consensus on the matter of evidence.

The essence of "evidence" is that it is objective. There's no "evidence for you" vs "evidence for me". (Now I'm reminded of our previous discussion where you insisted that God can "exist for me" and yet "not for you", and I'm thinking you probably still haven't really grasped the problem there.)

From the perspective of a theist.

Another empty, repetitive truism from you. Very enlightening, Jan.

You don't think my belief in God has good justification. Right?
I think you purposely reject/deny God.
We both believe things about the others position. Just deal with it.

I know what you think. And I'm dealing with it!

I don't cry into my beer about what you think about my position. Why should you?

Don't worry about me, Jan. I'm not shedding tears over you. I completely understand your position. You have yet to come to grips with mine. I'm just trying to help you.

What does an atheist approval have to do with defining atheism?

Nothing. You are quite free to define the term incorrectly if you wish. Atheists will simply dismiss your definition as ill-informed, at best.

Especially when it is not simply coming from my own mind.

It's your mind doing the cherry picking.

One doesn't have to assert there is no God, for the situation of 'no God' to be apparent in their lives. You seem to be of the opinion that it only counts if you assert it.

What is apparent in atheist lives is no belief in God.

No doubt you imagine a kind of atheist shield barrier against God, kind of like somebody presenting a cross to a vampire. "Don't come near me, O God that I know exists but refuse to acknowledge! Begone!"

Your attempt again to import the idea that God exists has failed again.

As for your hair-splitting point about "assert", put it this way: I do not believe that God exists. I do not believe that God does not exist. I make no "assertions" about whether God exists or does not exist, because the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[James R]

Atheist perspective.

You can take it as read that I will post from an "atheist perspective".

It might be more helpful if you attempt to provide a contrasting "theist perspective" at some point in the discussion, rather than simply calling out what you see as a problem.

Arrogance: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

Hey! There's a dicitionary definition we can agree on.

Because I think you haven't thought your position through, which you clearly haven't, you call me arrogant?

And with that, you simply reinforce that correctness of the label I applied to you.

Go on. Get it off your chest James.

It's in one ear and out the other with you, isn't it? You read, but you don't really take in what is being said to you. After reading a reply, you just repeat your points that have just been directly countered, as if it never happened. Often, it happens in the very next post you make.

What haven't I justified, in this thread?

I've been pointing out your errors all through the thread. And not just me. See what I mean?

That is my perspective. You just can't get your head around it.

It's not hard to get my head around "I'm a theist. Therefore I believe in God.", which is about all you have offered regarding your position so far in this thread. It's a statement of belief, followed by an empty truism, as I have pointed out several times by now.

To tell the truth, I'm no longer sure there's really any more depth to your belief than this dogmatic mantra. Maybe you do it more for your own benefit than ours. Must ... keep ... believing ... in ... God. Must ... resist ... critical ... thought.

Remember, our perspectives, on this matter, are entirely opposite. You do not understand what belief in God means from my perspective, only from your own.
Do you accept that?

Only insofar as I am not you, and therefore have no access to your inner life. All I have to go on is what you write here, and that doesn't give a lot of grand insight into your "perspective". From what you've written, I'm fairly confident that your belief in God is not very different from that of any other believer, and not very different to what my belief was like back when I believed in God.

It's interesting that you somehow know that our perspectives are "entirely opposite", though. That means, I assume, that you claim to know what non-belief in God is from my perspective, while I apparently lack the capacity to have an equivalent insight into what your belief is.

Why would you say something like that? I've told you quite a few times, but you don't want to accept it. Belief in God is natural to human beings, as is not believing in God. We have the capacity to accept either position.

"Belief in God is natural to human beings" is a claim that applies to human beings in general. I would prefer a statement more along the lines that "The predisposition to believe in God is natural to human beings", and we could spend quite some time unpacking that statement.

What it means, among other things, is that human beings have a predisposition to have a "gut feeling" that there's some anthropomorphic power larger than themselves "out there".

So, you're right that we might trace your "gut feeling" back to a more general disposition that many people share and blame that general disposition rather than blaming some quality specific to you. We can explain your belief that way if you like, but it amounts to the same thing when we get down to the individual level.

That's simply your way of looking at it. The reality is, and has always been, there is God, and there are folk who choose not to accept God.

It's a pity there's no objective evidence for this "reality" of yours. Why is that, do you think?

Oh, but I forgot. You're not claiming that God exists, are you. The question of existence is unimportant to you.

I understand that you don't want to come across as someone who rejects God, but everything lends itself that notion.

It would be necessary for God to exist and for me to know that in order for it to be possible for me to consciously reject God.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of ''atheist''. You said so yourself.

That's disingenuous of you, Jan.

I invite readers to review my earlier posts in this thread to see what my position really is, rather than to take Jan's word on this.

You just mistakenly believe that I am implying God exists.

There's no mistake. In fact, you just flat-out made the claim, above.

The reality is, I don't need to.

The reality is that you very much need to. You scream out your need in your every tortured attempt to define "atheism" to suit yourself.

 

[James R]

Have I ever said that ''God (actually) exists''?

Exhibit A:
"The reality is, and has always been, there is God, and there are folk who choose not to accept God."

You remember writing that, don't you Jan? It was only just above the post I'm replying to, after all.

So your position is that the reality is that there is God, but that doesn't mean that God exists?

An atheist perspective. I might have known.

Again, take it as read that I'm posting from an atheist perspective. Any other comments? Do you have a theist perspective that you'd like to offer your readers?

I didn't say you assume God exists, or assert that God exists. It doesn't matter what you assume or assert.

You know, Jan, it kind of does matter when you're in a discussion forum having a discussion about something.

The fact is that God does not currently exist, as far as you're aware. Either that or God does exist as far as you're aware. But that would contradict not only you're label, but what you say about your position. Namely that there is no evidence for God's existence, meaning currently God does not exist (even though you haven't asserted it).

The fact that I'm not aware of any good evidence for God's existence doesn't mean that God does not exist. Knowledge doesn't follow from belief, like I said.

It's not my definition James.

Of course it is. It's certainly not my definition, and I'm not the one defending it. You are.

How is it that the definition atheist prefer to use today, is so different from what the word, and all the terms associated with the term ''atheist''? Should I not look at any definitions of the word? Should I consult an atheist before looking at these definitions, so they can school me in how to look at them?

Sure. You might as well consult an expert, rather than going solely on a generalist dictionary definition. Use your dictionary if you like, but be aware that dictionaries only record usages of words. As for the differences between today and the past, realise that usages and meanings of many words change over time.

You're talking about acquiring knowledge, of going from the state of ignorance. Theism isn't like that. Theism is natural. Just as atheism is natural. I don't have to have knowledge of my senses. They just are. It is only when your senses begin to fade, or you lose some, that we become a little more concerned about what they are.

We're back to your "just knowing" again. I guess you're plugging the "natural" line now because I previously described your claimed innate access to special knowledge as "magical".

What you're doing here, of course, is that you're now trying to define "natural" to include the supernatural, and in particular God. So, anything associated with God becomes "natural" under this redefinition.

Nice try, Jan, but "just knowing" stuff, without any external source of the knowledge, is a magical claim, not a natural one.

I have already talked about senses a little. You don't remember learning how to use your senses, but take it from me that you did learn.

The problem is, you don't understand what God is. You think it is something else, or something other than everything else. You comprehend God, as a separate entity.

I understand that your particular brand of theism is a kind of pan-theism, wherein everything is "part of God". Rocks, trees, dogs, you and me - we're all part of God. In the widest sense, as I have pointed out before, you merely substitute the word "God" for "universe". The two are indistinguishable, other than by your claim that God is a kind of personification with creative agency. And there's no separation of the two in the empirically accessible realm.

For my purposes, it doesn't matter much if your God is a separate entity or a God who manages by some magic simultaneously to be everything and to maintain a separate identity.

No. I don't base it on evidence. That would be silly.
Either she loves me, or she doesn't. What could you regard as evidence that your wife loves you?

We've had that discussion before, I believe. There would be many objective signs that your wife loves you. I really don't want to be distracted by following you down that particular rabbit hole again.

I simply define ''atheism'' James.
I don't need personal testimonies of atheists, to define ''atheism''.
I accept yours and Sarkus's account, but I don't agree with it.
What is disrespectful about that?

If you don't know, I don't think I can help you. Obviously you didn't learn certain niceties of polite social discourse. It's probably too late to hope to change you now. I imagine you're set in your ways.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jan Ardena]

You omitted it when you summed up what you mean when you've been using the term:

I also omitted this,

"Atheism is one thing: a lack of belief in gods" (God).

Lack - the fact that something is notavailable or that there is not enough of it:

The state of being without or not having enough of something.

‘there is no lack of entertainment aboard ship’

‘the case was dismissed for lack of evidence’.

Note that it claim the lack of belief is purely in God/God's. Not statements or assertions. Of course it follows that if you lack belief in something, then your not going to believe in it because someone asserts it. But I assume you can work that out for yourself.

So it's a pretty safe conclusion that no, you didn't realize you had inadvertently engineered the destruction of your own claim.

If it makes you feel better, but I know that you're simply defending your position, which is indefensible. All one has to do look.

God does not exist for the atheist.

The (agnostic) atheist, cannot assert that God does not exist, because such an atheist, doesn't know.

Such an atheist will not claim the obvious, that to him, God does not exist, or there is no God. Because he will have to explain his reason why. His/her reason why is obvious, because they cannot sense God. Either they have an inability, or they reject/deny, to the point of forgetfulness.

Such an atheist is proud, and does not want to be seen as inadequate, especially with the dominance of science and technology, over the past 100 years or so.

So they try to redefine themselves in a way that makes them seem rational, by shifting the definition of terms like 'atheism' around. Probably until they find a term that captures their ideal self image.

It's so obvious it's ridiculous.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I also omitted this,

"Atheism is one thing: a lack of belief in gods" (God).

Lack - the fact that something is notavailable or that there is not enough of it:

You're still doing the same thing. You're still pretending that the label defines the thing. This is fallacious.

You've tried this thousand times and it has been refuted a thousand times in a hundred different ways.

The latest way it's been refuted is that you yourself have shown that there are many labels for things, so no one label can define a thing.

Here is a definition you provided for the label:

[Atheism] is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.



So, now your insistence on one specific definition is causing you to contradict yourself.

You have exhausted any credibility you ever had, and are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're still doing the same thing. You're still pretending that the label defines the thing. This is fallacious.

You've tried this thousand times and it has been refuted a thousand times in a hundred different ways.

The latest way it's been refuted is that you yourself have shown that there are many labels for things, so no one label can define a thing.

Here is a definition you provided for the label:

[Atheism] is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.



So, now your insistence on one specific definition is causing you to contradict yourself.

You have exhausted any credibility you ever had, and are making a fool of yourself.

I think you miss the point. The quote I gave at first was from the American Atheist (society or something). What I just sent you was the title of that article from which the quote came from. The contradiction is obvious. They say they lack belief in gods (God), then go on to say they lack belief in assertions of gods (God). Why would they do that?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're still doing the same thing. You're still pretending that the label defines the thing. This is fallacious.

If you're an atheist, then the label explains that you are. Obviously there are grey areas, but no one has the time to go into them. So we deal with labels, and what one say's about the label. So yes, the label does define the thing, in the case of discussion forums.

You've tried this thousand times and it has been refuted a thousand times in a hundred different ways.

You can't refute it Dave. That's the problem. You are an atheist, and God does not currently exist as far as you're aware, despite assertions, and assumptions. If that is not the case, then you're not an atheist.

The latest way it's been refuted is that you yourself have shown that there are many labels for things, so no one label can define a thing.

You're an atheist, and everything you have written on the subject of God, points to that. The label defines your belief status, perfectly. Every definition that I post, pertains to every single atheist I've ever discussed God with. The label does not deviate. It is sure and steadfast. It just IS, regardless of what you think.

You have exhausted any credibility you ever had, and are making a fool of yourself.

Reveal the truth of a situation can do that. But as yet, no one will argue against the actual points. They just deflect it, by turning the attention on to me, just like you're doing.

Tell me; Is it a fact that God currently does not exist, as far as you're aware?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

The label defines your belief status, perfectly. Every definition that I post, pertains to every single atheist I've ever discussed God with. The label does not deviate.

That's the problem with labels. They're fixed in your mind and they don't have to have any real relationship with what you're labelling.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's the problem with labels. They're fixed in your mind and they don't have to have any real relationship with what you're labelling.

Are you an atheist or not?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you're an atheist, then the label explains that you are. Obviously there are grey areas, but no one has the time to go into them

And yet, we've run through a thousand or more post on this very topic. So it's not an issue of no time.
The issue is that you have a single specious definition that you have clung to for thousands of posts.

So we deal with labels, and what one say's about the label.

No. We don't. You do. Because it suits your argument. Or would, if it hadn't been refuted a thousand times.

So yes, the label does define the thing, in the case of discussion forums.

Good. You have admitted that you think a single label defines a thing.
This is progress of a form, because it is demonstrably false.

You yourself have posted multiple definitions of the same label, proving to yourself that no one definition of many can encompass something.

Your stance, for thousands of posts, has been dependent on a single definition - and you have subsequently listed multiple definitions. So you have directly and explicitly contradicted your own long-game assertion.

You have no choice but to either admit that you've contradicted yourself in a massive way, or show yourself as a troll who is simply trying to get your jollies.