Total Posts:1,235|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism Is B.S.

zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:49:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not an atheist, but I'll take a shot at replying to your post.

At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?


God or gods.

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

Specifically god or gods. The broad terminology doesn't apply to the supernatural in general or ghosts, aliens, or whatever.

The whole idea doesn't make sense.


It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.


I agree with that. Atheists have specifically made the determination towards a lack of belief. Completely apathetic people or self declared apatheists, for example, do not quality as atheists because they lack that specific intended determination.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

Indeed, mostly. As said above, an atheists is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. So that could mean someone who has never encountered the very concept of a god could be an atheist because lack that belief, but I do think the qualifier of someone who specifically "disbelieves" (has examined the issue and come to a determination) is a fair one.

However, the term is pretty simple from a simple language perspective. A theist is one who believes in god. Someone who doesn't believe in god for whatever reason, is strictly based on language "A"-Theistic - a lack of theism.
Debate.org Moderator
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

I'm an atheist. This is because I believe that with certainty that no god/ supreme being exists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 8:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

LOL. Usually, when we hear these claims, it's from folks who are incapable of separating their beliefs from any discussion simply because they can't imagine a world without their gods, so they project that lack of capacity to everyone else.

Of course, the idea here is that the disbelief is not in the gods themselves, it is in the claims made by theists. You say God exists, I say prove it, you say you can't and just have to take your word for it and I say, Sorry, I don't believe your claims.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:49:09 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but I'll take a shot at replying to your post.

At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

Not according to many people. They claim it's simply a lack of belief and don't tie it to a god or gods.

The whole idea doesn't make sense.


It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelieves, yes.

Lacks belief? No, the term atheist doesn't cover that, as that would make someone either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason they lack belief.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:04:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:55:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

I'm an atheist. This is because I believe that with certainty that no god/ supreme being exists.

I would agree you are atheist.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:07:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
LOL. Usually, when we hear these claims, it's from folks who are incapable of separating their beliefs from any discussion simply because they can't imagine a world without their gods, so they project that lack of capacity to everyone else.

Then it should be quite refreshing to hear them from a logical person such as myself who doesn't do any such thing.

Of course, the idea here is that the disbelief is not in the gods themselves, it is in the claims made by theists.

The only claim all theists have in common is the belief in a god or gods. Logically, therefore, to be an atheist is to express disbelief in that claim.

You say God exists, I say prove it, you say you can't and just have to take your word for it and I say, Sorry, I don't believe your claims.

I never said God exists. I never made an claim as to the existence or lack thereof for any deity or deities.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:07:54 PM, zoinks wrote:
LOL. Usually, when we hear these claims, it's from folks who are incapable of separating their beliefs from any discussion simply because they can't imagine a world without their gods, so they project that lack of capacity to everyone else.

Then it should be quite refreshing to hear them from a logical person such as myself who doesn't do any such thing.

BWHAAAHAH!! hhaa haha hah!! Hahhh...hooo hooo hahhhhahahahahh Logical such as yourself?

-ahem, chortle.- How droll.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:04:26 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:49:09 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but I'll take a shot at replying to your post.

At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

Not according to many people. They claim it's simply a lack of belief and don't tie it to a god or gods.

The whole idea doesn't make sense.


It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelieves, yes.

Lacks belief? No, the term atheist doesn't cover that, as that would make someone either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason they lack belief.

Are you trying to differentiate between Atheist and Agnostic? If not why does it make a difference if I don't believe there is a God versus I don't care if I take a position on it one way or the other.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:04:26 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 9/12/2015 8:49:09 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but I'll take a shot at replying to your post.

At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

Not according to many people. They claim it's simply a lack of belief and don't tie it to a god or gods.

The word has to specifically apply to "theism". It's A theism (theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods). The word itself specifically makes it mean a lack of theism. Just like apolitical, or asexual, means a lack of engagement in whatever form with those terms. For someone to say that asexual people have a lack of something towards something, but we can't be sure what, doesn't mean we should take seriously someones lack of understanding with the term (in terms of playing semantics with it). Asexual means something specific, as does atheist. I guess we could break down those terms to what each individual means in their use, but there is a generally understanding regardless.

The whole idea doesn't make sense.


It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelieves, yes.

Lacks belief? No, the term atheist doesn't cover that, as that would make someone either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason they lack belief.

Of course it does. An atheist, either by default or by choice, lacks a belief in theism and is therefore A-theistic.

Really though, I'm not sure what the point of this is beyond semantics. If someone identifies themselves as an atheist, it is obvious what they mean (I guess some could misuse the word, but let's assume they aren't). I realize that in the English language there is plenty of overlap in the use of words, and plenty of other terms than can be used to mean something more specific, but that doesn't change that "atheist" is a "lack of theism", and specifically as it is defined, a lack of belief (however you want to define belief as a conscious or default status) in god or gods.
Debate.org Moderator
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:37:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:10:45 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:07:54 PM, zoinks wrote:
LOL. Usually, when we hear these claims, it's from folks who are incapable of separating their beliefs from any discussion simply because they can't imagine a world without their gods, so they project that lack of capacity to everyone else.

Then it should be quite refreshing to hear them from a logical person such as myself who doesn't do any such thing.

BWHAAAHAH!! hhaa haha hah!! Hahhh...hooo hooo hahhhhahahahahh Logical such as yourself?

-ahem, chortle.- How droll.

Yes, I was referencing myself.

Or have you conveniently forgotten how my use of logic has gotten the best of you many times, reducing you to nothing more than a whining stubborn fool each and every time you've offered an illogical argument in one of my threads?
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:39:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are you trying to differentiate between Atheist and Agnostic? If not why does it make a difference if I don't believe there is a God versus I don't care if I take a position on it one way or the other.

It is easy to make such a distinction.

An atheist is someone who specifically states a disbelief in a deity or deities. An agnostic is someone who isn't sure if they believe in a deity or deities because they don't believe there is sufficient evidence either way.

It matters because the two are vastly different positions.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:41:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

Okay, I guess I'm an agnostic or apatheist, according to your definition. So what? Do you have a larger point?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:46:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:37:36 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:10:45 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:07:54 PM, zoinks wrote:
LOL. Usually, when we hear these claims, it's from folks who are incapable of separating their beliefs from any discussion simply because they can't imagine a world without their gods, so they project that lack of capacity to everyone else.

Then it should be quite refreshing to hear them from a logical person such as myself who doesn't do any such thing.

BWHAAAHAH!! hhaa haha hah!! Hahhh...hooo hooo hahhhhahahahahh Logical such as yourself?

-ahem, chortle.- How droll.

Yes, I was referencing myself.

Or have you conveniently forgotten how my use of logic has gotten the best of you many times, reducing you to nothing more than a whining stubborn fool each and every time you've offered an illogical argument in one of my threads?

If by "gotten the best of you", you mean repeating yourself and offering no substance of citation on your own behalf, then yes.

If you mean disregarding reference to compendiums of knowledge, disagreeing with experts in the realm of which you were opining, and not even using the basics of what words mean, then yes.

If you mean drawing from evidence, examining how said evidence stacks up against similar study, and then drawing conclusions from it, no. But then again, this part never happened, so to be fair, the jury could still be out.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:49:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

Not according to many people. They claim it's simply a lack of belief and don't tie it to a god or gods.

The word has to specifically apply to "theism". It's A theism (theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods).

Great. So then logically atheism would be a specific disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelieves, yes.

Lacks belief? No, the term atheist doesn't cover that, as that would make someone either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason they lack belief.

Of course it does. An atheist, either by default or by choice, lacks a belief in theism and is therefore A-theistic.

First, you can't be an atheist "by default". No one is of any belief system "by default".

Second, one must choose to be atheist, as you cannot be atheist without a specific decision not to believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Really though, I'm not sure what the point of this is beyond semantics. If someone identifies themselves as an atheist, it is obvious what they mean (I guess some could misuse the word, but let's assume they aren't).

It's not obvious at all, actually, which is the point of this thread.

Many people claim to be atheists but are actually apathetic or agnostic.

I realize that in the English language there is plenty of overlap in the use of words, and plenty of other terms than can be used to mean something more specific, but that doesn't change that "atheist" is a "lack of theism", and specifically as it is defined, a lack of belief (however you want to define belief as a conscious or default status) in god or gods.

Atheism is specifically disbelief in theism, and the claim held by theism is a belief in a god or gods; therefore, atheism is a disbelief in a god or gods.

A lack of belief makes one either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason for said lack of belief.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:51:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

Okay, I guess I'm an agnostic or apatheist, according to your definition. So what? Do you have a larger point?

Yes. I would like people to be logical and use the correct terms, not butcher atheism to include those who are apathetic an agnostic.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:57:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or have you conveniently forgotten how my use of logic has gotten the best of you many times, reducing you to nothing more than a whining stubborn fool each and every time you've offered an illogical argument in one of my threads?

If by "gotten the best of you", you mean repeating yourself and offering no substance of citation on your own behalf, then yes.

I got the best of you the same way every time: Through use of logical reasoning.

You'd then ignore it for a while and then claim it didn't exist. I'd reference you to earlier in the thread and you'd just keep saying it didn't exist.

I see you're already getting ready for that again.

If you mean disregarding reference to compendiums of knowledge, disagreeing with experts in the realm of which you were opining, and not even using the basics of what words mean, then yes.

You never made reference to any real knowledge source or anyone who could be agreed upon as an expert in any field. You simply declared this was the case on your own to bolster your own non-argument.

When an argument is over what a word means, there tends to be disagreement on what the word means. That's self-evident.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:49:39 PM, zoinks wrote:
I'm fairly certain that nearly everyone is pretty sure that atheists lack belief in god or gods.

Not according to many people. They claim it's simply a lack of belief and don't tie it to a god or gods.

The word has to specifically apply to "theism". It's A theism (theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods).

Great. So then logically atheism would be a specific disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.


I believe based only on what I said above, that the logical conclusion would be atheism is merely a lack of belief in theism.

It's actual a very simple word. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelieves, yes.

Lacks belief? No, the term atheist doesn't cover that, as that would make someone either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason they lack belief.

Of course it does. An atheist, either by default or by choice, lacks a belief in theism and is therefore A-theistic.

First, you can't be an atheist "by default". No one is of any belief system "by default".


I suppose it depends on how literally you take the definition. A lack of belief in god, is atheism. So by default that would be the position and it doesn't require it being viewed as a belief system. Furthermore, I believe plenty would disagree with atheism being called a "belief system". It's simply a lack of belief in god and therefore doesn't require any beliefs but a lack of belief - and it's difficult for me to apply a whole system of belief to a mere lack of belief. In other words (and I really don't mean to be snarky here, that's not my intent) I don't believe in Big Foot, I'm an A-Bigfootist (to keep the terminology consistent). This isn't any kind of "belief system", I just lack belief by default.

Second, one must choose to be atheist, as you cannot be atheist without a specific decision not to believe in the existence of a god or gods.


Again, while I think it's fair to say that atheists have made a determination in most cases, I don't think that the literal definition of the word bears that out. In other words, an infant who we can assume has no belief in anything whatsoever, could be (to again take the terms as literally as possible) considered to be an atheist.

Fundamentally therefore, we disagree on the semantic issues here, and more importantly, what an "atheist" actually is. Is it someone who strictly observes to a belief system that says there is no god and they have come to a determination of this (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to strawman your position) or to use the more literal interpretation of the word, is it mere lack of belief in theism (belief in god) regardless of how it is acquired.

Really though, I'm not sure what the point of this is beyond semantics. If someone identifies themselves as an atheist, it is obvious what they mean (I guess some could misuse the word, but let's assume they aren't).

It's not obvious at all, actually, which is the point of this thread.


I don't believe I've ever heard of a self-described atheist who believed in god, nor have I heard the term used to describe a lack of belief in anything else. In my experience the word has meant something very straightforward. If that hasn't been your experience then I suppose we simply have had different experiences.

Many people claim to be atheists but are actually apathetic or agnostic.

I realize that in the English language there is plenty of overlap in the use of words, and plenty of other terms than can be used to mean something more specific, but that doesn't change that "atheist" is a "lack of theism", and specifically as it is defined, a lack of belief (however you want to define belief as a conscious or default status) in god or gods.

Atheism is specifically disbelief in theism, and the claim held by theism is a belief in a god or gods; therefore, atheism is a disbelief in a god or gods.

A lack of belief makes one either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason for said lack of belief.

Again, I think this is a semantics issue, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in theism or a lack of belief in god. Apathetic or agnostic can mean the same things, but that doesn't mean that atheist doesn't mean whatever it has been defined as.
Debate.org Moderator
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:57:03 PM, zoinks wrote:

When an argument is over what a word means, there tends to be disagreement on what the word means. That's self-evident.

https://www.wordnik.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:57:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
Or have you conveniently forgotten how my use of logic has gotten the best of you many times, reducing you to nothing more than a whining stubborn fool each and every time you've offered an illogical argument in one of my threads?

If by "gotten the best of you", you mean repeating yourself and offering no substance of citation on your own behalf, then yes.

I got the best of you the same way every time: Through use of logical reasoning.

Self referencing is not "reasoning".

You'd then ignore it for a while and then claim it didn't exist. I'd reference you to earlier in the thread and you'd just keep saying it didn't exist.

Much like what you are saying I didn't reference. As I recall, you dismissed pretty much everything that disagreed with you as illogical.

I see you're already getting ready for that again.

No, however the other people you are engaged with are, and I have no doubts about the same pattern repeating itself. You are correct in your argument because ipse dixit.

If you mean disregarding reference to compendiums of knowledge, disagreeing with experts in the realm of which you were opining, and not even using the basics of what words mean, then yes.

You never made reference to any real knowledge source or anyone who could be agreed upon as an expert in any field. You simply declared this was the case on your own to bolster your own non-argument.

The AMA, and the APA are not "real" knowledge sources? mmHm. I see.

When an argument is over what a word means, there tends to be disagreement on what the word means. That's self-evident.

especially if one person is making their own definition up, and claiming it should be the only definition, but lets see how this thread plays out, shall we?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:32:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The word has to specifically apply to "theism". It's A theism (theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods).

Great. So then logically atheism would be a specific disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.


I believe based only on what I said above, that the logical conclusion would be atheism is merely a lack of belief in theism.

Logically, since theism represents a belief in a god or gods, atheism would be disbelief in a god or gods.

Of course it does. An atheist, either by default or by choice, lacks a belief in theism and is therefore A-theistic.

First, you can't be an atheist "by default". No one is of any belief system "by default".


I suppose it depends on how literally you take the definition. A lack of belief in god, is atheism.

No. A lack of belief makes one either apathetic or agnostic, NOT atheist.

So by default that would be the position and it doesn't require it being viewed as a belief system.

A "default position" if one could be said to exist (that's an entire argument in and of itself) would be literally no position on the matter at hand - whether it is a religious matter or otherwise.

Atheism is obviously not having no position on the matter.

Furthermore, I believe plenty would disagree with atheism being called a "belief system".

Yet it makes a statement of belief (specifically disbelief), which logically makes it a belief system.

It's simply a lack of belief in god and therefore doesn't require any beliefs but a lack of belief

No. Again, lack of belief is apathetic or agnostic.

- and it's difficult for me to apply a whole system of belief to a mere lack of belief.

Perhaps apply it to the specific disbelief, then, since that is atheism.

In other words (and I really don't mean to be snarky here, that's not my intent) I don't believe in Big Foot, I'm an A-Bigfootist (to keep the terminology consistent).

Yes, that would work. You made a specific statement of disbelief in Big Foot.

If, however, you took no position on the matter and made no statement regarding belief or lack thereof in Big Foot at all, you would not be A-Bigfootist.

This isn't any kind of "belief system", I just lack belief by default.

It is a statement of belief.

It is not a default position, which would once again be taking no position at all.

Second, one must choose to be atheist, as you cannot be atheist without a specific decision not to believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Again, while I think it's fair to say that atheists have made a determination in most cases, I don't think that the literal definition of the word bears that out.

The term has no meaning or use without that definition.

In other words, an infant who we can assume has no belief in anything whatsoever, could be (to again take the terms as literally as possible) considered to be an atheist.

An infant would be without position. Since it cannot profess a disbelief in a god or gods (or a belief) then it can't be atheist (or theist). It is neither.

Is it someone who strictly observes to a belief system that says there is no god and they have come to a determination of this (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to strawman your position) or to use the more literal interpretation of the word, is it mere lack of belief in theism (belief in god) regardless of how it is acquired.

A lack of belief is apathetic or agnostic. A specific disbelief is atheist. I think those are quite clear.

Really though, I'm not sure what the point of this is beyond semantics. If someone identifies themselves as an atheist, it is obvious what they mean (I guess some could misuse the word, but let's assume they aren't).

It's not obvious at all, actually, which is the point of this thread.


I don't believe I've ever heard of a self-described atheist who believed in god, nor have I heard the term used to describe a lack of belief in anything else.

This also supports the conclusion that atheism is a specific disbelief in a deity or deities.

A lack of belief makes one either apathetic or agnostic, depending upon the reason for said lack of belief.

Again, I think this is a semantics issue, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in theism or a lack of belief in god.

No. Atheism is defined specifically as not believing in a deity or deities.

Apathetic or agnostic can mean the same things, but that doesn't mean that atheist doesn't mean whatever it has been defined as.

No, they do not mean the same things.

Apathetic means you do not make any statement of belief or disbelief in a deity or deities because you do not care and/or do not consider it important, etc.

Agnostic means you do not make any statement of belief or disbelief in a deity or deities because you do not believe there is sufficient evidence or information on either side to draw such a conclusion.
ken1122
Posts: 471
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:32:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 8:25:13 PM, zoinks wrote:
Many people want to tout that atheism is simply a lack of belief. In what, specifically, no one seems sure.

So for those who believe this, you are an atheist if you don't believe in what, exactly?

Religion as a concept? The Judeo-Christian God? Anything and everything "supernatural"? Ghosts? Aliens? Conspiracy theories?

The whole idea doesn't make sense.

REAL atheism is a specific stated disbelief in the existence of any deity or deities. It doesn't exist without that disbelief.

Someone who simply lacks any certain religious belief but hasn't specifically objected to the idea of the existence of a deity or deities is NOT an atheist.

I am an atheist because there is nothing that exist that I call God. I will admit what you or others may call God may exist, but because I do not consider it a God, I am an atheists.

If a Theist mentions his God, it would be presumptuous for me to claim his God doesn"t exist before he tells me what his God is. Yeah living in the USA there is usually an assumption he is referring to one of the Abrahamic Gods, but that isn"t always the case;
there are those who worship nature, the Sun, I believe there was a story in the Bible where some were worshipping a Golden Calf. Now it would be foolish for me to say what those people call God doesn"t exist, of course they do! But I call nature our environment, the Sun a star, and the Golden Calf a chunk of metal; I don"t call any of those things God.
So as an atheist, if you asked me if I believe God exist, I would tell you to describe God; upon explaining I would then tell you if I believe he exist or not.

Ken
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:37:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I got the best of you the same way every time: Through use of logical reasoning.

Self referencing is not "reasoning".

Too bad that's not what I did. You sure tried hard to convince yourself though.

You'd then ignore it for a while and then claim it didn't exist. I'd reference you to earlier in the thread and you'd just keep saying it didn't exist.

Much like what you are saying I didn't reference. As I recall, you dismissed pretty much everything that disagreed with you as illogical.

I dismissed that which was illogical as illogical, and showed how each and every time.

If "pretty much everything" you used to argue was illogical, that's not somehow my problem. Perhaps you should have argued from logic instead.

I see you're already getting ready for that again.

No, however the other people you are engaged with are, and I have no doubts about the same pattern repeating itself. You are correct in your argument because ipse dixit.

No one here is trying to argue from nothing like you've done in the past. No one here has tried to play games within the argument like you have in the past.

You never made reference to any real knowledge source or anyone who could be agreed upon as an expert in any field. You simply declared this was the case on your own to bolster your own non-argument.

The AMA, and the APA are not "real" knowledge sources? mmHm. I see.

Sure, they provide insight to some topics, but your use of them wasn't logical.

When an argument is over what a word means, there tends to be disagreement on what the word means. That's self-evident.

especially if one person is making their own definition up, and claiming it should be the only definition, but lets see how this thread plays out, shall we?

No one made up their own definition in the argument we had.

One person was arguing a definition from logic, while one was using ad populum and claiming that was all they needed. (Hint: the latter was you).
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am an atheist because there is nothing that exist that I call God. I will admit what you or others may call God may exist, but because I do not consider it a God, I am an atheists.

This is a position I've never seen someone take before.

The existence of a god or gods is a dichotomous subject. It is either true (there is/are a god or gods) or untrue (there is/are not a god or gods).

Therefore, logically speaking, if conclusive proof somehow was shown that a god or gods exist, one cannot simply claim this is not the case; in the same manner, if conclusive proof came about that showed a god or gods do not exist, one cannot simply claim they do.

Put more simply, it doesn't make logical sense to say a god exists yet does not exist at the same time.

there are those who worship nature, the Sun, I believe there was a story in the Bible where some were worshipping a Golden Calf.

The sun is not a deity, even if some may worship it. The same can be said of nature or a golden calf.

Mere worship of an object does not make it a deity.

So as an atheist, if you asked me if I believe God exist, I would tell you to describe God; upon explaining I would then tell you if I believe he exist or not.

This leads me to ask a logical question: Do you believe any actual deities exist, not merely objects people worship?
ken1122
Posts: 471
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 11:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:42:45 PM, zoinks wrote:
I am an atheist because there is nothing that exist that I call God. I will admit what you or others may call God may exist, but because I do not consider it a God, I am an atheists.

This is a position I've never seen someone take before.

The existence of a god or gods is a dichotomous subject. It is either true (there is/are a god or gods) or untrue (there is/are not a god or gods).

Therefore, logically speaking, if conclusive proof somehow was shown that a god or gods exist, one cannot simply claim this is not the case; in the same manner, if conclusive proof came about that showed a god or gods do not exist, one cannot simply claim they do.

Put more simply, it doesn't make logical sense to say a god exists yet does not exist at the same time.


Ken
Nobody is saying that. I am saying what others mistakenly call a deity, I don't.


there are those who worship nature, the Sun, I believe there was a story in the Bible where some were worshipping a Golden Calf.

The sun is not a deity, even if some may worship it. The same can be said of nature or a golden calf.

Mere worship of an object does not make it a deity.

Ken
Of course not! Deities do not exist! (That includes yours) but that doesn"t stop you or anyone else from believing that it does now does it? The same goes for those who worship the Sun.:


So as an atheist, if you asked me if I believe God exist, I would tell you to describe God; upon explaining I would then tell you if I believe he exist or not.

This leads me to ask a logical question: Do you believe any actual deities exist, not merely objects people worship?

Ken
A deity is a being that is thought to be supernatural, sacred, holy, and divine. What people call holy, divine, or sacred exists, but supernatural does not.
ken1122
Posts: 471
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 11:22:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:32:45 PM, zoinks wrote

Yet it makes a statement of belief (specifically disbelief), which logically makes it a belief system.

Ken
Let's take this logic a bit further. I also disbelieve in Santa Clause, Lockness monster, Bugs Bunny, Big Bird and a host of others characters. Are each of these belief systems? How many belief systems do YOU have?


Ken
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 12:19:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Put more simply, it doesn't make logical sense to say a god exists yet does not exist at the same time.


Ken
Nobody is saying that. I am saying what others mistakenly call a deity, I don't.

Neither does any person who is logical.

However, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of a legitimate deity or deities.

The sun is not a deity, even if some may worship it. The same can be said of nature or a golden calf.

Mere worship of an object does not make it a deity.

Ken
Of course not! Deities do not exist! (That includes yours)

I'm glad you agree, but whether deities exist or not is your opinion.

I didn't claim a god, so you cannot reference a claim I did not make.

but that doesn"t stop you or anyone else from believing that it does now does it?

People can believe whatever they wish to believe. They have that right.

Again, I have not made any mention of my personal opinion on a deity or deities.

So as an atheist, if you asked me if I believe God exist, I would tell you to describe God; upon explaining I would then tell you if I believe he exist or not.

This leads me to ask a logical question: Do you believe any actual deities exist, not merely objects people worship?

Ken
A deity is a being that is thought to be supernatural, sacred, holy, and divine.

That's a very loose definition I do not agree with because I find it to be too vague.

For example, a ghost, spectre, witch, warlock, werewolf, vampire, or any number of fabled creatures could potentially be considered a deity under that definition.

Logically, a deity is an entity which not only receives worship, but is thought to have abilities or powers over the real world sufficient enough to warrant such worship (i.e. obviously beyond human capabilities).

As an example, a worship of the sun could fit here, but only if those who praise the sun truly believe it controls or exerts force over the real world.

What people call holy, divine, or sacred exists, but supernatural does not.

I understand this is your belief, and you are entitled to it.

Such a statement would make you an atheist.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 12:21:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 11:22:24 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 10:32:45 PM, zoinks wrote

Yet it makes a statement of belief (specifically disbelief), which logically makes it a belief system.


Let's take this logic a bit further. I also disbelieve in Santa Clause, Lockness monster, Bugs Bunny, Big Bird and a host of others characters. Are each of these belief systems? How many belief systems do YOU have?

Ken

In each case, you have made a specific statement of disbelief in those entities. That is a belief system (disbelief).

If you had no opinion whatsoever on the matter, then it could be said you do not have a belief system regarding that matter.

I have many belief systems, as do most people. Humans tend to have opinions on a variety of topics and subject matters; in that regard I am no different than others.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 1:03:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A-theism is the negation of theism. Theism is the belief that God or gods exist. So atheism entails both disbelief (that God or gods do not exist) and non-belief (non-acceptance of the premise "God exists). Non-belief or non-acceptance of the claim doesn't necessarily entail rejection but rejection necessarily entails non-acceptance. So agnosticism is equivalent to atheism if you're using the term to mean "lack of belief" in God.
ken1122
Posts: 471
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 5:09:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 12:19:11 AM, zoinks wrote:
Neither does any person who is logical.

Ken
Are you saying those of other religions cannot be logical?


However, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of a legitimate deity or deities.

Ken
If a person believes something is sacred, holy, and divine, to that person it is, but to me it is not.


I'm glad you agree, but whether deities exist or not is your opinion.

I didn't claim a god, so you cannot reference a claim I did not make.

Ken
My point is, if you are going to make the claim that what someone else worships is not a deity or God, the same could be said for what you might worship; whatever that might be.


That's a very loose definition I do not agree with because I find it to be too vague.

For example, a ghost, spectre, witch, warlock, werewolf, vampire, or any number of fabled creatures could potentially be considered a deity under that definition.

Ken
I"ve never heard of people claiming warlocks, were wolves, or vampires as sacred, holy, and divine, but if they did, they could be Gods to those people.


Logically, a deity is an entity which not only receives worship, but is thought to have abilities or powers over the real world sufficient enough to warrant such worship (i.e. obviously beyond human capabilities).

Ken
In theory, someone could put warlocks, were wolves, or vampires in that category. What people call God is very subjective.


As an example, a worship of the sun could fit here, but only if those who praise the sun truly believe it controls or exerts force over the real world.

Ken
Perhaps they do.