Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe. Is proclaiming, "I believe God does not exist" not a belief?
Should we move to ban believers?
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
Toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe. Is proclaiming, "I believe God does not exist" not a belief?
Yes, that's the "believe not" part - strong atheism.
Whereas I, for one, fall into the "I have no belief" category - weak atheism.
Wiki:
See the difference?
so you are trying to argue that rejection works outside of any issues of belief?
How does that work?
When you say "issues of belief" are you referring to ALL beliefs, or purely with regard the belief that is being rejected?
all beliefs of course - the only way rejection can work without belief is if it has no values ..... (in which case there is no platform for rejection, so go figure)
Last edited:
Then the answer to your questions to Dywyddyr is simply "No", and there was no implication that he was trying to make such an argument.
Atheism is not the the statement "I have no beliefs at all" - but specifically the case of "I have no belief in the existence of God".
Dywyddyr's comments suggested nothing else - since he was talking about a category of position with regard the specific belief in the existence of God.
therefore either you are mistaken or you are deliberately putting up a strawman. Go figure.:shrug:
Sure, other beliefs (e.g. related to one's epistemological position on the matter) may give one the platform for rejection of the belief in the existence of God, but that is a separate issue to the one raised by Dywyddyr.
Atheism is not the the statement "I have no beliefs at all" - but specifically the case of "I have no belief in the existence of God".
Dywyddyr's comments suggested nothing else - since he was talking about a category of position with regard the specific belief in the existence of God.
therefore either you are mistaken or you are deliberately putting up a strawman. Go figure.:shrug:
Sure, other beliefs (e.g. related to one's epistemological position on the matter) may give one the platform for rejection of the belief in the existence of God, but that is a separate issue to the one raised by Dywyddyr.
It seems that Dyw is saying that he is not actually rejecting anything.
A weak atheist is like someone to whom a parcel was delivered to their doorstep, but who doesn't do anything with the parcel, doesn't touch it, doesn't remove it, just leaves it there.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's more like someone who was told that an invisible parcel was delivered to their doorstep, is skeptical but goes 'looking' for it anyway, and, of course, never finds it.
What is this person supposed to think?
As long as they don't trip over that parcel ...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Of course, but as long as that doesn't happen.. And they will never trip over the parcel if it wasn't there in the first place.
You see my point?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?
And bear in mind that you can't trip over God either.
Theists are generally not aware of the situation atheists are in (see your metaphor for example).
I agree, and I have often, from many perspectives, brought this problem to the attention of theists - but to not much avail.
For practical intents and purposes, I am an atheist, so this concerns me; although I don't declare myself as an atheist as I think the label is too limiting and doesn't corectly describe my stance.
So given this lack of theistic response, I decided to look into the matter differently, trying to investigate what the atheists could be doing wrong, what the problem could be on the atheist side.
I find that atheists, on principle, tend to take theistic claims about God seriously (enough to engage in long discussions/debates), but their actions to find out the truth about God themselves are disproportionally small in relation to that seriousness.
IOW, atheists tend to seem very passive, reactive: their instant reaction to a theistic claim is intense, but otherwise, they are very passive to the theistic endeavor (ie. they don't pray, don't study scriptures (much), don't visit religious services etc.).
If atheism truly would be an independent, self-contained, proactive and viable stance, then why ask
"What are people that don't believe in God supposed to think when they are told about God and then go looking for him but never find him?"
-?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I did not know that. I recently read one of your posts in which you stated that you believe in God (?)
Anyhow, before I came here some 10 years ago I didn't even know the word "atheist" (it's not a word that is commonly used in The Netherlands). As such it is only the theists here that labeled me as an atheist.
I never thought much about what label fits me (and not at all before I came here; 'not a believer' or something similar is enough here), but I think I would prefer naturalistic pantheist over atheist.
The atheists do not claim anything about God. The only stance they have is that they don't buy the claims of the theists. If no proactive theists are around, atheists do not have much of an incentive to think or talk about it (let alone praying etc.).
It's a sincere question that you, as an atheist (excuse the term), should understand.
What else can atheists do but shrug and move on with their lives, if it wasn't for the huge impact theism has on all our lives? Theists nag and accuse and push things on us.
Apart from all that, many atheists are genuinely interested in what goes on in the theist mind.
Speaking for myself, I just cannot contemplate why any rational person would buy into this religion stuff.
Move to ban beleebers.
i dunno.. because the make a claim with no facts to back it up or evidance to support it.
it would be like i rode my unicorn to work today and my blue faries got in a fight with the flying cows over a patch of singing grass that tured neon blue and glows at night
So if a person says "I have no belief in the existence of X" it is a statement not supported by any trace of reason or value?
Has someone suggested that such a statement is not supported by any trace of reason or value? :shrug:
I certainly haven't.
Dywyddyr hasn't.
Care to explain how you reached the conclusion that either of us was suggesting such? Or would you care to retract your little strawman fallacy?
I might as well ask why you think that all people who believe in God are bereft of the sense of taste?
Oh? You didn't say that? Go figure.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
The bolded parts - look strange for a Buddhist ...
Did you skip the Buddha's lessons on views, sublime attitudes and sectarians?
Just because I can relate to them and understand them doesn't make me a Buddhist.
A couple of reasons for that (at least):
Since these claims are made by fellow humans then we're intrigued as to why they make claims for things that are not apparent to us.
And theism (in one way or another) does play a role in our lives - after all most of us live in societies with at least some claim (historical or otherwise) to belief and use that belief in the formation of laws &c.
It's as simple as " I cannot see, at all, what you're talking about". But fascinating nevertheless.
In general - for this forum at least - it's as intense as the responses to any other claim that appears to have no foundation (take a look at the replies in "Denial of Evolution" for example).
Why should we since they haven't been shown to produce answers?
For myself I'm not terribly interested in being "proactive*" about atheism. I simply don't want to be required to accept something I can't see the point in. I have been known to argue just as vociferously against football (soccer).
* Proactive - awful, despicable word.
PS: thanks Signal.