Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[SithDoughnut]

Ok. So to keep you from being offended,

How about simply "in order to have a decent discussion"? I'm not sure why you have to assume that I'm offended, or try to focus the issue on me personally. If people try to prescribe other people's beliefs for them, no real discussion can be had. You have to listen to the other person's view instead of trying to decide what they think and then insisting that they believe what you want them to. It's basic politeness. We're not laying eggshells out for you to walk on, we just want a nice discussion.

we have to say to you that we don't know if you believe in anything, would that be a fair assumption?

You don't have to say anything. Again, I'm not sure why you're focusing the issue on me or acting like I'm making an unreasonable request. You don't know what I believe - you don't have to tell me that, I already know that you don't know me.

(Whereas, so many atheists do insist that they don't believe in any supreme being (outside of themselves).

Well, of course, atheism means not believing in a God. I think you've missed my point. Atheism can be two things: it can be actively believing that there is no God, or it can be simply not believing in a God. The latter definition is normally the more popular one because it includes the former.

All atheists do not believe in a god, but not all atheists believe that there isn't one at all.

 

[Mling]

Ok. So to keep you from being offended, we have to say to you that we don't know if you believe in anything, would that be a fair assumption? (Whereas, so many atheists do insist that they don't believe in any supreme being (outside of themselves).

I don't think it's a matter of walking on eggshells to keep from offending people. It's just that certain statements are accurate and other ones aren't. "You believe this," isn't true, if the person doesn't believe it. "You have to believe this" is almost never true because nobody has to believe anything. "All people like you believe this," is never true, because no group of people is so monolithic that you can say every single person believes a specific thing--that's especially true if the group is self-selected (meaning, people freely choose whether to join the group or not, or whether to use the label or not, and there's little-to-no external source regulating the label. Anybody can choose to call themself a Christian or an atheist, in a way that not everybody can choose to call themself black, or a graduate of a specific college).

If you are interested in what a person believes, then an appropriate thing to say is something like, "What do you believe," or "what does this belief mean to you?"

If you care about accurately representing a belief system, it's appropriate to ask the people who hold it what it means to them, and use a definition that encompasses what they say. Nearly all atheists will say that atheism means not believing in gods. Some will go further and say that it means actively disbelieving in gods. So, a useful working definition of atheism would be "not believing in gods, and sometimes actively disbelieving in them, though not everybody agrees with that part."

The problem isn't that insisting "all atheists must believe X" is "offensive." It's that it isn't true, and it demonstrates that the person saying it doesn't care about what's actually true or not, or what the people they're talking to and about about actually believe. Which raises serious questions about what they are trying to accomplish in the conversation.

 

[drjean]

Thanks for your reply.

I suppose few are reading the accurate, official definitions of atheism that I posted...

...and yes, I disagree with someone insisting what someone else must believe...


from what I read of the subject line, each person would do best by answering only their own thoughts on atheism, and not be countering what others believe (which then leads them to have to clarify/counter etc) and the thread goes awry for the OP.

I personally believe that there is no "right" to not be offended and that each person decides for him or herself about whether they will feel offended or not. It's a choice. There seem to be many hurting people (people who are hurting) and carrying chips on their shoulders from the hurt (and they may not realize they are striking out at others. ) It could be that's the only way they've been spoken to, and are patterning it.

But I am still not sure why so many atheists can (and others can't) come to a concensus that atheism is it's own religion, but the very definition of the word. But it really doesn't affect me at all, and I'm not upset by those who fail to see such reasoning. It won't matter in the long run. God loves them anyway, but it is their choice whether to accept Him or not, otherwise, we'd all be believers! Be well.

 

[Gadarene]

Thanks for your reply.

I suppose few are reading the accurate, official definitions of atheism that I posted...

...and yes, I disagree with someone insisting what someone else must believe...

from what I read of the subject line, each person would do best by answering only their own thoughts on atheism, and not be countering what others believe (which then leads them to have to clarify/counter etc) and the thread goes awry for the OP.

Except that's not what people were doing, people were clarifying that there is more than one type of atheism, which those in opposition in the thread are still trying to crowbar every atheist into.

But I am still not sure why so many atheists can (and others can't) come to a concensus that atheism is it's own religion, but the very definition of the word.

"So many" atheists consider their view a religion? Unlikely. Citation needed.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"So many" atheists consider their view a religion? Unlikely. Citation needed.

This.

 

[Daniel25]

Atheism has a few elements. One is the pagan element, and you see it among the more civilized of this tribe. Their viewpoints range from epicurus to nero, rarely dabbling in stoicism. The atomism of Democritus gets lip service, but in practice its usually sacred science more in the vein of the Egyptians or Mayans; your typical technophile couldn't solve a differntial equation to save his soul, much less understand the models behind his electronic toys. Its a mystical appreciation, not an intellectual one.


The other half is heathenism; it results moreso from a perversion of virtue. You see it among the more stridently secular. I see it mostly as a rebranding of catharism, with its same flirtation with gnosticism. The sexual aspects, the anti-family, the pacifism, the food taboos (veganism is about purity, not concern for animals per say. Consider a vegan who discovers he accidently ate swine- he feels disgust, even though the animal is already dead and whether he ate it or not doesn't change it. Its a food taboo for a modern Cathar). I expect it will the same way, although another albigenisan crusade will be unpleasant for everyone involved. It is equally not long term stable.

 

[rturner76]

I find it humorous when an Atheist comes to a Christian forum, asks what said Christians think of Atheism and expects a......What exactly was expected? I don't know but it makes for interesting reading anyway. If you need me I'll be at the Atheist forum having a discussion about Jesus....

 

[Gadarene]

I find it humorous when an Atheist comes to a Christian forum, asks what said Christians think of Atheism and expects a......What exactly was expected?

Ooh, where to start?

Respect enough to actually listen to how members of a group define themselves, perhaps?

Actually listening when common misconceptions about what atheism is are pointed out?

Or are you saying we should expect what we actually got - the exact opposite? I will agree though, those responses are pretty hilarious - those common courtesies not even being extended and all

 

[Mling]

I find it humorous when an Atheist comes to a Christian forum,

The greater forum might be Christian, but this is one of the places where people of different beliefs are allowed, and discussions about, "What do you think of this idea?" are common.

asks what said Christians think of Atheism and expects a......What exactly was expected?

What are you suggesting here? If Christians' usual portrayal of themselves is to be believed, then anybody could come on here and ask "What do you think of me?" and receive only unconditional love and support, tinged with a desire for those people to become happier by coming to Jesus. Given that assumption, why wouldn't any atheist come here and try to start a dialog about beliefs? What do you find humorous about it?

I don't know but it makes for interesting reading anyway. If you need me I'll be at the Atheist forum having a discussion about Jesus....

You won't be the only Christian there.

 

[rturner76]

No offense intended. I just think Christians don't have a reputation for being the "let's hear what you believe" type. Especially in an online forum when opinions go on steroids. I didn't mean to imply anybody didn't belong here or shouldn't be here. Just maybe I could have guessed something like this would happen. It usually does but it made it to page 13. Normally the thread is shut down by the mods around page 7 so this went well actually.

 

[Mling]

No offense intended. I just think Christians don't have a reputation for being the "let's hear what you believe" type. Especially in an online forum when opinions go on steroids. I didn't mean to imply anybody didn't belong here or shouldn't be here. Just maybe I could have guessed something like this would happen. It usually does but it made it to page 13. Normally the thread is shut down by the mods around page 7 so this went well actually.

There was no offense taken. It's just that you seemed to be saying, "Well, of course we don't care about the truth, or people's thoughts, and of course the conversation is turning nasty. What else would you expect of Christians?"

I found it funny, actually.

 

[Vainslain]

Atheism cannot stand by itself in many grounds. It has to use a lot of objective sounding words that make no sense in its own world

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism cannot stand by itself in many grounds. It has to use a lot of objective sounding words that make no sense in its own world

Such as?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Vainslain]

Such as?

eudaimonia,

Mark

I can name few that was being thrown out there like:

There's no God
There's contradiction in the bible
Science has all the answers
Morality is based on evolution

All of these claims must be proven by atheist's own standard and worldview in order to make sense

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's no God
There's contradiction in the bible
Science has all the answers
Morality is based on evolution

All of these claims must be proven by atheist's own standard and worldview in order to make sense

Everyone must use some sort of epistemology to address theistic claims. There's no escaping that. However, that doesn't mean that the epistemology that an atheist uses cannot examine theistic claims.

There's no inconsistency with that, even if it might be unsatisfying for theists who want atheists to believe in their worldviews and epistemologies first in order to disprove them, which is of course impossible.

But let's examine your list:

There's no God

First of all, atheists don't normally say this. What they say is that there aren't good enough reasons to conclude that a God exists.

It's up to theists to define their gods, but atheists may reject belief with full logical justification if the definition doesn't make sense to them (e.g., if it is vague or contradictory), or if the evidence for such a hypothetical being is lacking.

There's contradiction in the bible

All this takes is reading skills. One can just as easily claim that there are contradictions in The Lord of the Rings without beliving in the reality of Middle-earth.

Granted that ambiguities in human language don't make this a completely certain claim due to problems of interpretation, but there's nothing wrong with an atheist claiming this.

Science has all the answers

I have never heard an atheist claim this.

Morality is based on evolution

Some atheists claim this, but not all do. For instance, I don't. I'm curious though why you think that this sort of claim doesn't fit an atheistic worldview.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Buy Bologna]

I can name few that was being thrown out there like:

There's no God

That's an absolute. That's as arrogant as saying 'there IS a god.'

You will find that most atheist are the humble ones. Saying you can't prove whether he/she does or doesn't exist.

There's contradiction in the bible

Only becuz there is

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7622061/

I gave just a sample of some in my OP.

What is basically came down to is that the bible didn't contradict itself in the original text but now it does. Anyway, give the thread a read.

Science has all the answers

No it doesn't.

Science is a study of how the world/universe works. We can only obtain facts by experimenting/observing/studying. When we discover something new, we find even more things we have yet to discover.

Who said that?

Morality is based on evolution

I know to be moral due to the consequences of my actions and becuz it's the right thing to do.

Lesser minds, less evolved minds to don't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can name few that was being thrown out there like:

There's no God
There's contradiction in the bible
Science has all the answers
Morality is based on evolution

All of these claims must be proven by atheist's own standard and worldview in order to make sense

 

[Vainslain]

Everyone must use some sort of epistemology to address theistic claims. There's no escaping that. However, that doesn't mean that the epistemology that an atheist uses cannot examine theistic claims.

There's no inconsistency with that, even if it might be unsatisfying for theists who want atheists to believe in their worldviews and epistemologies first in order to disprove them, which is of course impossible.

But let's examine your list:

There's no God

First of all, atheists don't normally say this. What they say is that there aren't good enough reasons to conclude that a God exists.

It's up to theists to define their gods, but atheists may reject belief with full logical justification if the definition doesn't make sense to them (e.g., if it is vague or contradictory), or if the evidence for such a hypothetical being is lacking.

There's contradiction in the bible

All this takes is reading skills. One can just as easily claim that there are contradictions in The Lord of the Rings without beliving in the reality of Middle-earth.

Granted that ambiguities in human language don't make this a completely certain claim due to problems of interpretation, but there's nothing wrong with an atheist claiming this.

Science has all the answers

I have never heard an atheist claim this.

Morality is based on evolution

Some atheists claim this, but not all do. For instance, I don't. I'm curious though why you think that this sort of claim doesn't fit an atheistic worldview.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Thanks for the reply. All these claims of course are done by generic atheists and theist has no time verifying what atheist school of thought they belong to. But generally these are what we consistently read from them. But for all claims that was made it's assumed of course that atheist do believe in such thing as contradiction, logic, laws of thought and morality. In the world of atheism how do you account for them including your own epistemology? I don't mind the objection against theists. But by what authority and means you prove reality and of truth statement such as these claims?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks for the reply. All these claims of course are done by generic atheists and theist has no time verifying what atheist school of thought they belong to. But generally these are what we consistently read from them. But for all claims that was made it's assumed of course that atheist do believe in such thing as contradiction, logic, laws of thought and morality. In the world of atheism how do you account for them including your own epistemology? I don't mind the objection against theists. But by what authority and means you prove reality and of truth statement such as these claims?

Logic, reason, and empirical evidence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But for all claims that was made it's assumed of course that atheist do believe in such thing as contradiction, logic, laws of thought and morality. In the world of atheism how do you account for them including your own epistemology?

Oh, you're a presuppositionalist.

I account for those things well enough, and largely because I don't have an excessively rationalistic epistemology. That is where presuppositionalism crashes and burns. Its rationalism requires that all human thought rest on unsupported premises, which is a philosophical dead end. Of course, it makes an appeal to a pure act of imagination in a literal deus ex machina to save them from that dead end, but in truth it remains a dead end.

IMV, one doesn't have to prove human reason valid in some rationalistic fashion. Rather, one learns how to use one's rational faculty through life experience, and one comes to gain confidence in certain patterns of thought through its use. There may be a few self-evident axioms underlying concepts (such as "stuff exists"), but they don't require supernatural justification. There is no need for suprahuman certainty or suprarational knowledge here. Knowledge is a human trait, and attempts to make it divine only end up in philosophical confusion.

But by what authority and means you prove reality and of truth statement such as these claims?

By the authority of reality and the means of human reason. This is entirely sufficient.

I'll leave you with some links:

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Presuppositionalism vs. Objectivism: How Objectivism Prevails

http://katholon.com/Logic.htm


eudaimonia,

Mark