Atheism: What's the point?

[DiscountSatania]

We've already established that the definition of atheism which we're operating under includes agnosticism and that the only difference is a lack of belief in theism. I do question why one would insist on the term atheism if they accept the reasonability of both possibilities.

Because 'not believing in gods' is Atheism.

Seriously - how many times?

What I wonder though is if you equally distribute your skepticism across both possibilities.

Over both possibilities... of what?

Do I think it's possible there's a god? Sure. Do I 'believe' in gods? No. Because allowing that it COULD be the case doesn't mean that I believe it IS.

Do I think it's possible there's NO god? Sure. Do I 'believe' there's definitely no god? No - because allowing that there could be no gods doesn't mean I believe there are no gods.


Which leaves me with a simple lack of belief. Which is still atheism.

Then if you believe all that your beliefs are actually similar to mine - except that I believe in god (with no trimmings) and accept the possibility that I am wrong. I also understand that my *faith* is not logically derived and inherently not provable and not disprovable.

Srsly, though I don't mean to frustrate you by calling you agnostic - you have a right to call yourself an atheist if you want.

[Treznor]

Its for Evil people who probably are gonna get beat up with there attitude.... well my cousins a atheist and his attitudes mean and negative... .but also dont believe in anything good and dosent believe in god. i think its pretty tacky.

Was there a point to that image spam?

My mother's pretty mean and negative and so is my brother, and neither of them believe in anything good unless they thought of it first and they both believe in god. I think it's pretty sick.

[Grave_n_idle]

Srsly, though I don't mean to frustrate you by calling you agnostic - you have a right to call yourself an atheist if you want.

I have that 'right' because that's what I am.

Implicit Atheists lack faith in god or gods, and tend to overlap with Agnosticism, for reasons that are fairly obvious, when you think about it.

People that say I'm Agnostic rather than Atheistic are missing the boat - my Agnosticism only informs how I feel about 'knowledge' of gods, it is my Atheism that describes my 'belief' relationship.

Yes, I'm Agnostic. Yes, I'm also an Atheist.

[G073nks]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

[Treznor]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

I know, I know. You're new to this thread.

Atheism does not have be an active belief that there are no gods. Atheism is also a lack of belief in gods. The "softer" version ties in very well to agnosticism. Because, as has been repeated ad nauseum, atheism is a statement of belief, while agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I do not have enough knowledge, so I do not believe.

[Grave_n_idle]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

It's 79 pages on my settings. I could see why you wouldn't want to read all of that.

Suffice it to say, "no".

[Hayteria]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

Wrong. Atheism could simply mean not believing in any god; this doesn't mean assuming there is none. Besides, even Richard Dawkins, whose perspective as an individual IS that there is no god, accepts the possibility that there may be one.

[Canuck Utopia]

Therefore, you don't deny that God may exist, or do you?

Seriously, do you pay ANY attention?

I am an Implicit Atheist.

That means - by definition - that I do NOT 'deny' the existence of gods - I just don't 'believe' in one (or more).

You keep saying that your an "Implicit Atheist", but so often I have seen you take the "strong" athiest stance.

Your first post in this thread:

1.) we dont sell
2.) we choose to belive or not
3.) if religion was truly brainwashing then everyone would be religous
4.) we may not get free cookies but we get eternal life, what more do you want???
5.) all the cookies i want when i get to heaven.

2) You choose to believe? That's not belief - that's lipservice. I pity you, because (if there is a god) no god will be tricked by your hollow rhetoric.

4) You don't get eternal life. You picked the wrong god. Now you either burn in some miserable hell, or you just die.

Are you denying Lithzenze's God? You know for a fact that Lithzenze picked the wrong God, and that there is no eternal life? Your post is representative of an "agnostic atheist? I don't think so and your mockery of Lithzenze's God proves it.

Your second post in this thread:

i choose to belive in christianity, know one has made me, it called faith.

I don't accept that you can CHOOSE to believe - thus, what you call faith, I call fiction.

I think you can be convinced to believe something, by the evidence... maybe. I don't think you can argue belief as something you can choose.

and i am 100% sure i have chosen the one and only god.

Unfortunately, you're wrong...

unless you can PROVE you're not. And you can't.

Thus, when the Muslims (for example) are proved right, you'll be burning, while the Atheists will be forgiven for their mere lack of faith.

Again you are making bold claims, and using your beliefs to mock the poster. Again you employ the "strong" athiest argument. You may self identify as an "implicit athiest", but your posting habits do not seem to support that.

[Omega Uliza]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

Wrong. Atheism could simply mean not believing in any god; this doesn't mean assuming there is none. Besides, even Richard Dawkins, whose perspective as an individual IS that there is no god, accepts the possibility that there may be one.

That's the agnostic view. Agnostic-Atheist...or something or other. It has a fancy title and it has to do with with being agnostic.

Also, I notice you started ranting about atheism, when he pointed out the key difference between the two.

[Grave_n_idle]

You keep saying that your an "Implicit Atheist",

I keep saying it because it's true.

Look back over the entire thread, not just selective parts. If ANYONE has asked me what I believe, what my position is, etc - the answer has been consistent.

...but so often I have seen you take the "strong" athiest stance.

Your first post in this thread:

1.) we dont sell
2.) we choose to belive or not
3.) if religion was truly brainwashing then everyone would be religous
4.) we may not get free cookies but we get eternal life, what more do you want???
5.) all the cookies i want when i get to heaven.

2) You choose to believe? That's not belief - that's lipservice. I pity you, because (if there is a god) no god will be tricked by your hollow rhetoric.

4) You don't get eternal life. You picked the wrong god. Now you either burn in some miserable hell, or you just die.

Actually read what I wrote, and what I was responding to.

Lithzenze says you can CHOOSE your belief, and I said that no god would be tricked by that. That's not saying 'there IS no god' (indeed, read it - I said 'IF there is a god').

Lithzenze also made the claim that he/she gets eternal life. This is based on the assumption that Lithzenze believes the one true god, and everyone else is wrong - I used this as a rhetoric device, by claiming that - in fact - it's a different god that is the real one.

That's clearly a rhetoric device. It also, JUST as clearly, is NOT a statement of Strong Atheism. If you honestly believed that I was being genuine about my belief with THAT comment... it would be a statement of THEISM, not ANY kind of Atheism.

Are you denying Lithzenze's God? You know for a fact that Lithzenze picked the wrong God, and that there is no eternal life? Your post is representative of an "agnostic atheist?

No. No to all of those things.

I employed a rhetoric device of asserting the exact same certainty Lithzenze was preaching back at him/her... just with the names changed.

It's like pointing out the fallacy in Pacal's Wager by introducing a third option.

I don't think so and your mockery of Lithzenze's God proves it.

It 'proves' nothing... and I suspect you know it. You must do if you actually read it, because it's impossible to read the idea that there is another god as ANY kind of atheism.

Your second post in this thread:

i choose to belive in christianity, know one has made me, it called faith.

I don't accept that you can CHOOSE to believe - thus, what you call faith, I call fiction.

I think you can be convinced to believe something, by the evidence... maybe. I don't think you can argue belief as something you can choose.

and i am 100% sure i have chosen the one and only god.

Unfortunately, you're wrong...

unless you can PROVE you're not. And you can't.

Thus, when the Muslims (for example) are proved right, you'll be burning, while the Atheists will be forgiven for their mere lack of faith.

And again - look at what I wrote. "You are wrong... unless...", "Muslims (for example)".

I'm pretty sure you didn't buy that as me stating my actual faith, especially since - once again, it doesn't even fit the 'Strong Atheism' you keep claiming for me.

Again you are making bold claims, and using your beliefs to mock the poster.

No, I'm not - I'm using the poster's OWN rhetoric flourishes to highlight the weakeness in his/her argument.

Again you employ the "strong" athiest argument. You may self identify as an "implicit athiest", but your posting habits do not seem to support that.

That didn't even LOOK like a Strong Atheist' argument. Indeed, if you took it all on face value, it would make me look like a REALLY indecisive THEIST.


Now go back and look through the thread at every time I've been asked to present my belief structure.

Hell, go back to the Jolt forum. There's 30,000 posts on this account over there - and I've been consistent the whole time.

[Grave_n_idle]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

Wrong. Atheism could simply mean not believing in any god; this doesn't mean assuming there is none. Besides, even Richard Dawkins, whose perspective as an individual IS that there is no god, accepts the possibility that there may be one.

That's the agnostic view. Agnostic-Atheist...or something or other. It has a fancy title and it has to do with with being agnostic.

Also, I notice you started ranting about atheism, when he pointed out the key difference between the two.

The point is - what people keep calling Agnostic, isn't.

Based on that misunderstanding of Agnosticism, they then misrepresent Atheism.

It's not that people are ranting about Atheism, per se - it's people (again, and again, and AGAIN) having to point out that Agnosticism says NOTHING about 'belief in god', and Atheists are NOT confused about what THEY mean.

An Agnostic thinks it impossible to KNOW if there is or is not a god. That isn't as an alternative - you can be both Agnostic and an Athiest... OR you can be both Agnostic and a Theist.


The lack of belief in gods isn't Agnosticism, because it's not claiming anything about knowledge (look at the etymology for a-gnostic). The best fit is Atheism.

[Canuck Utopia]

You keep saying that your an "Implicit Atheist",

I keep saying it because it's true.

Look back over the entire thread, not just selective parts. If ANYONE has asked me what I believe, what my position is, etc - the answer has been consistent.

Yet your posting posture reflects more of a strong atheist position.

...but so often I have seen you take the "strong" athiest stance.

Your first post in this thread:

1.) we dont sell
2.) we choose to belive or not
3.) if religion was truly brainwashing then everyone would be religous
4.) we may not get free cookies but we get eternal life, what more do you want???
5.) all the cookies i want when i get to heaven.

2) You choose to believe? That's not belief - that's lipservice. I pity you, because (if there is a god) no god will be tricked by your hollow rhetoric.

4) You don't get eternal life. You picked the wrong god. Now you either burn in some miserable hell, or you just die.

Actually read what I wrote, and what I was responding to.

Lithzenze says you can CHOOSE your belief, and I said that no god would be tricked by that. That's not saying 'there IS no god' (indeed, read it - I said 'IF there is a god').

It is all about choice. You choose not to believe and others choose to believe. Whats wrong with that and how do you know what any God will accept or won't accept?

Lithzenze also made the claim that he/she gets eternal life. This is based on the assumption that Lithzenze believes the one true god, and everyone else is wrong - I used this as a rhetoric device, by claiming that - in fact - it's a different god that is the real one.

That's clearly a rhetoric device. It also, JUST as clearly, is NOT a statement of Strong Atheism. If you honestly believed that I was being genuine about my belief with THAT comment... it would be a statement of THEISM, not ANY kind of Atheism.

You are the one making the assumption that Lithzenze's claim is false and unprovable. While it may be unprovable, it does not mean that Lithzenze's claim(s) are false. You stated:

Unfortunately, you're wrong...unless you can PROVE you're not. And you can't.

Sure looks like a strong atheist statement, and if you were using it as a rhetorical device, it failed.

Are you denying Lithzenze's God? You know for a fact that Lithzenze picked the wrong God, and that there is no eternal life? Your post is representative of an "agnostic atheist?

No. No to all of those things.

I employed a rhetoric device of asserting the exact same certainty Lithzenze was preaching back at him/her... just with the names changed.

It's like pointing out the fallacy in Pacal's Wager by introducing a third option.

You keep claiming use of rhetorical devices, but in essence you are using them to mock Lithzenze's beliefs. If Lithzenze is "wrong" as you state, then prove it. Making unsupportable statements does not help your argument.

I don't think so and your mockery of Lithzenze's God proves it.

It 'proves' nothing... and I suspect you know it. You must do if you actually read it, because it's impossible to read the idea that there is another god as ANY kind of atheism.

I believe it demonstrates a strong atheist position on your part. I know that you don't believe in the Muslim religion and your post was solely meant to mock Lithzenze's beliefs.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yet your posting posture reflects more of a strong atheist position.

Which you have yet to even show the suggestion of, much less any evidence.

It is all about choice. You choose not to believe and others choose to believe.

I didn't choose to be an Atheist.

If you believe you can 'choose', I'd like to see you prove it.

Sure looks like a strong atheist statement, and if you were using it as a rhetorical device, it failed.

Lithzenze said: "and i am 100% sure i have chosen the one and only god". Saying "you're wrong unless you can prove it" doesn't look like a Strong Atheist position any more than it looks like a Weak Atheism argument, or a Mormon argument, or a Muslim argument.

It's a demand for proof, and a negation of the absolute claim, until proof is provided.

You keep claiming use of rhetorical devices, but in essence you are using them to mock Lithzenze's beliefs.

Demanding proof is not mockery. Showing that the argument is inconsistent is not mockery. Demonstrating that special exception is being sought, is not mockery.

If Lithzenze is "wrong" as you state, then prove it. Making unsupportable statements does not help your argument.

That's funny. The point of the comments was to show that Lithzenze is making statements that cannot be proved, and that are unsupportable... and thus, do not help the argument.

And I thought you said the rhetorical devices didn't work?

I believe it demonstrates a strong atheist position on your part.

I'm wondering why you seem to be confusing 'Strong' and 'Explicit', and I'm wondering if you're doing it deliberately.

But then, you don't actually seem to know what either IS, so maybe it's not design.

I know that you don't believe in the Muslim religion and your post was solely meant to mock Lithzenze's beliefs.

You don't 'know' my post was to mock, at all. Indeed, it's been explained to you a number of times that the purpose is to highlight the weakness in the argument presented - not to mock the belief.

Incidentally - you seem to have completely failed to respond to the 'babies do not believe in gods' thing... were you ever going to respond to that?

[Tmutarakhan]

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/r ... sir_12.asp

You should read something like this - my approach to historical sources is pretty standard academic rigour.

Your article, while interesting on the topic of evaluating secondary sources and determining whether the author has sufficient familiarity with and comprehension of the primary sources to be credible, has zero relevance to the question of why you discount most primary sources-- no, your behavior is not at all "standard", inside or outside of academia; I don't know anybody who denigrates primary sources the way you do.

[Ifreann]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

It's 79 pages on my settings. I could see why you wouldn't want to read all of that.

Suffice it to say, "no".

I believe that people like G073nks are exactly why its 79 pages. The classic NSG topic of theism V atheism combined with people popping in every 4 or 5 pages to say "Atheism is X"

[Gift-of-god]

....Can you prove X?
No? Well then until you do I don't believe X.

That is not quite true. Science does not prove anything, as it can only disprove things abd find supporting evidence for theories, but it can't prove them.

So, it may be more correct to say that you don't believe things that don't have some sort of solid evidence to support them.

....Every claim any theist has ever made about gods has been proven false. The only thing left is the one thing we can't prove: they don't exist......

You're a smart person. You should avoid making generalisations like this. For example, I am a theist, and my claim about god is that she is a process, a verb, a movement of the universe that only acts within the scope of natural law.

Now, the interesting thing about this claim is that such a god would be entirely consistent with the universe as we now see it, including scientific theories. It would be difficult to prove this claim false, as it would not even be possible to design an experiment. Other models of god claimed by other theists would have other problems in terms of unfalsifiability. Science can only disprove those claims that have something to do with the natural world.

It would be more correct to say that every claim by religious people of being able to influence the natural world through some sort of religious agency has been unable to be replicated in a scientific setting.

I see later on in the thread you started specifying testable claims, so you can ignore my pedantry, but I will still post it just to clarify the discussion a bit.

What I object to is any kind of label. Why should we call babies "implicit atheists", ....?.....

Well, I make the claim because after raising two of my own kids, and helping raise a whole community of kids, I have yet to find a single one who a) is capable of even formulating an abstract concept like the creation of the universe or the source of morality, and b) has shown some theistic belief without any teaching by an adult.

My own anecdotal findings are corroborated by psychologists who study early childhood development.

By the way, I'm totally ignoring the part of your post that I snipped and replaced with ellipses. I am not going to get drawn into your semantic discussion.

[Treznor]

....Every claim any theist has ever made about gods has been proven false. The only thing left is the one thing we can't prove: they don't exist......

You're a smart person.

Why, thank you.

You should avoid making generalisations like this. For example, I am a theist, and my claim about god is that she is a process, a verb, a movement of the universe that only acts within the scope of natural law.

Now, the interesting thing about this claim is that such a god would be entirely consistent with the universe as we now see it, including scientific theories. It would be difficult to prove this claim false, as it would not even be possible to design an experiment. Other models of god claimed by other theists would have other problems in terms of unfalsifiability. Science can only disprove those claims that have something to do with the natural world.

At this point gods cease to be supernatural entities as claimed by theists, and the whole concept of gods is undermined. Frankly, individual living entities controlling natural processes like thunder or random chance becomes more and more a stretch of the imagination as we explore the way nature works. Even demoting supernatural deities to natural deities suggests that there's some behavior on their part that we should be able to distinguish, and we have no proof of this. So it goes back to the last bit of unverifiable proof that gods exist, which is unfalsifiable.

Logic and science tends to reject unfalsifiable claims. There's nothing to say that such claims are impossible but since no one can point to an unfalsifiable claim being verified it is treated as unlikely and unworthy of effort.

It would be more correct to say that every claim by religious people of being able to influence the natural world through some sort of religious agency has been unable to be replicated in a scientific setting.

This has been conceded, yes.

I see later on in the thread you started specifying testable claims, so you can ignore my pedantry, but I will still post it just to clarify the discussion a bit.

No problem.

[Omega Uliza]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

[

I still don't see why you chose to "correct" him. He said exactly what they are. Granted, I never thought of it in the context that an agnostic dould be a theist as well, but he says what an atheist is. However he still said what it means. If people have been arguing for 79 pages, they might need a little refresher every now and then.

[Deus Malum]

Atheism is believing there is no god
Agnostics do not necessarily believe in god, but accept the possibility that there may be one

[

I still don't see why you chose to "correct" him. He said exactly what they are. Granted, I never thought of it in the context that an agnostic dould be a theist as well, but he says what an atheist is. However he still said what it means. If people have been arguing for 79 pages, they might need a little refresher every now and then.

No, he said exactly what he thinks they are. He's wrong, and we're correcting him.

I could just as easily have said:
Theist: One who believes in all gods.
Agnostic: One who doesn't believe in all gods.
And state Christians agnostics.

It isn't automatically right just because someone stated it, whether you agree with the view or not.
My statement above is just as inaccurate as his.

There are potentially theists who believe in all gods. However, the definition of theist generally considered to be "One who believes in any god(s)." Just as the definition of atheist is generally considered to be "One who lacks a belief in any god(s)," and NOT the definition he stated.

[Omega Uliza]

Excuse if I'm confused, but that still sounds exactly what he said.

[Deus Malum]

Excuse if I'm confused, but that still sounds exactly what he said.

No, he said:
Atheism is believing there is no god

And I'm saying, as are several of the other folks in this thread:
Atheism is not believing in a god.

The difference has been illustrated probably a half-dozen times in this thread alone.

[Omega Uliza]

Excuse if I'm confused, but that still sounds exactly what he said.

No, he said:
Atheism is believing there is no god

And I'm saying, as are several of the other folks in this thread:
Atheism is not believing in a god.

The difference has been illustrated probably a half-dozen times in this thread alone.

That seems to boil down to just semantics to me. They're the same thing. It's as if I said, "I believe I'm not going to get a phone call today offering me a job." and "I do not believe I'm going to get a phone call today offering me a job." Both sentences, mean the same thing.

[Gift-of-god]

Excuse if I'm confused, but that still sounds exactly what he said.

No, he said:
Atheism is believing there is no god

And I'm saying, as are several of the other folks in this thread:
Atheism is not believing in a god.

The difference has been illustrated probably a half-dozen times in this thread alone.

That seems to boil down to just semantics to me. They're the same thing. It's as if I said, "I believe I'm not going to get a phone call today offering me a job." and "I do not believe I'm going to get a phone call today offering me a job." Both sentences, mean the same thing.

Not quite.

I have kids. My younger daughter has no beliefs about god at all. She has no beliefs.

UB, a former poster, used to argue that there is no god. He believed that god didn't exist. He has a belief.

My daughter doesn't have beliefs about god. UB does. They are both atheists.

[Omega Uliza]

Then...doesn't his statement still fit?

[Deus Malum]

Then...doesn't his statement still fit?

Ok, I'm going to try an analogy I used earlier in this thread.

*flips a coin*

Do you believe it's heads?
Do you believe it's tails?

If you believe it's tails, you not only lack a belief that it's heads, you necessarily believe that it's NOT heads.
However, you can also simply believe that it's not heads. This doesn't automatically mean that you believe it's tails.