In order to refute atheism, you must promote atheism, but not atheists. Discuss.

[Gottservant]

Je ne comprends pas.

When you say "I am an atheist" you say "I am an atheist", therefore the identity given by "I am" is crucial, not ancillary.

I don't think anybody is denying the existence of atheists.

I didn't say deny atheist's existence - existence is God given, not atheist given - I said I deny atheists - ie, their atheism (while believing in it myself).

The point is, there is no formal attribution to the identity given (in atheist circles) - it is not an act of worship, of anything.

 

[variant]

I would disagree with both of those definitions, which seem to refer primarily to the way those words are used in informal speech. Traditionally, "knowledge" means "justified true belief" (and I believe the dictionary you quoted also says that).

That's a distinction between how we come to know things in our lives and how you might define it in an technical epistemological text.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would disagree with both of those definitions

So what? Playing all the word games you want. None of them will magically change the reality that actual atheists are telling you that their atheism really is just a lack of belief in gods.

 

[Davian]

When you say "I am an atheist" you say "I am an atheist", therefore the identity given by "I am" is crucial, not ancillary.

I am not a stamp collector.

 

[Booko]

So I just wanted to challenge you with something a little difficult. Could you say it is possible to refute atheism, by positing it as a logical contradiction, that atheists would yet say was acceptable, for reasons they can't understand?

No.

The first problem is the assumption that atheists are atheists for remotely similar reasons. They aren't. Yet you want to refute atheism as if it's a monolithic thing. It isn't.

And is this not what atheism is: presuming belonging on the basis of hate, that has no real object? So it is thus refuted?

No, that is not what atheism is.

Faulty assumption #2: Atheists hate something.

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God or gods. There are layers that may be put on top of that, but those layers are individual.

Yes, there are strident atheists.

And then there are the rest of the atheists, who are quite happy to just go about their lives and not feel the need to bother anyone else about their choices.

There are some atheists on the World Religions subforum. It might be of use to come speak to them there and see for yourself how divergent "atheism" can be.

I wonder what you will say about my argument, if you can follow it (focus on the contradiction of identity (as a positive stress)).

If fails because of the premises, so the argument structure is moot.

 

[Booko]

1) Atheism requires identity, but denies God

Atheism may simply consider God irrelevant. As some atheists are wont to say, A man without a God is like a fish without a bicycle.

To many atheists the idea that they "deny God" is more of a category mistake.

3) It is possible to refute atheism, because denying atheists is tenable for no logical reason

If you really want to try out this argument, why not try it out on a forum where a significant number of atheists are found?

For the record, I am not an atheist and haven't been for many years, but I also was an atheist for many years.

I look at your argument and to be blunt I wonder what alien species you are talking about. Just sayin...

 

[Booko]

which...

...is arguably irrelevant itself.

I would use the adjective "comedic" myself.

How can anyone be clearer? If you want to argue against a thing, you might first be bothered to acquaint yourself with what the thing is.

I could construct an argument against the existence of My Little Pony and frame it in terms of recipes for borscht, but it would rightly be perceived as somewhere between absurd and sophistry.

 

[Booko]

Agnostic actually often refers to whether a person thinks they do or can know whether god exists rather than what they believe.

I identify myself as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a god and I also lack a positive belief in God.

Indeed. I would consider myself an agnostic theist, as I do not believe the existence of God(s) is falsifiable, but I have a positive belief in God.

 

[Booko]

When you say "I am an atheist" you say "I am an atheist", therefore the identity given by "I am" is crucial, not ancillary

No, when I was an atheist I just said I was an atheist.

It was a means to convey that I had no religious beliefs. Even "atheist" ones like Buddhism.

The point is, there is no formal attribution to the identity given (in atheist circles) - it is not an act of worship, of anything.

Atheists have circles?

Why didn't I get invited to the potlucks?

 

[John the Bpt]

I view Atheism as yet another religion. It has grown to that status. I do not think a religion can be refuted as they are all just belief systems.

 

[Booko]

I view Atheism as yet another religion. It has grown to that status. I do not think a religion can be refuted as they are all just belief systems.

Be careful not to confuse atheism with irrelegion and "I don't care for organized religion thanks"

 

[John the Bpt]

...and has many followers all of whom believe they have the truth. It is the anti-religion religion.

 

[variant]

...and has many followers all of whom believe they have the truth. It is the anti-religion religion.

Believing things doesn't make it a religion or else I have various religions about my Pizza preferences.

 

[Davian]

...and has many followers all of whom believe they have the truth.

Atheism is not a truth statement.

It is the anti-religion religion.

Not collecting stamps is then the anti-hobby hobby.

 

[John the Bpt]

...not pizza.

 

[John the Bpt]

...without religion. Being without belief is a contrasting belief. All humans must have beliefs in order to define themselves. I would even say Atheism has become an organized religion. But I do not consider arguing over definitions to be worthy of much discussion. We are missing the larger picture. My post looks to have been moved to this thread as I don't recall posting in this thread. Maybe the moderators thought you needed something to liven things up more? I am a newbie and a Christian. Am I welcome here?.

 

[John the Bpt]

...can we decide what not to believe. That should be self evident. I am sure many philosophers here would agree.

 

[Gene2memE]

Atheism would not exist...without religion.

No, atheist would not exist without theism. Theism would not exist without belief.

Religion is organised belief.

Atheism is neither organised, nor a belief (its a non-belief or an absence of belief).

Therefore, it cannot be a religion. Definitionally.

 

[Booko]

...and has many followers all of whom believe they have the truth. It is the anti-religion religion.

How do you know this? Psychic abilities? Statistically significant sample size?

 

[Booko]

Only through believing...can we decide what not to believe. That should be self evident. I am sure many philosophers here would agree.

People can decide what not to believe without believing. Mere investigation does pretty well.

For example, I investigated Chemtrails, but my previous knowledge about chemistry, atmospheric layers, and the understanding of the meaning of ppm led me to conclude it was arrant nonsense without ever believing it.

Maybe it would be a good idea to let the philosophers here speak for themselves. It's a more accurate form of data gathering.