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

[John the Bpt]

I assume you have a concept of what you think you are? Well that concept of yourself is based on what you believe about yourself. One of your beliefs may be that you are an atheist based on the dictionary definition of an atheist. I am not disputing the dictionary. So you view yourself as an atheist and a Christian views themselves as a christian. Being without belief in God is not being without belief. Your beliefs are the lense through which you both view the world. I have known many atheists and had this conversation many times before. And since I am saying this only through my lense you are free to disagree.

 

[quatona]

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.

Atheism is not a belief system. All the term "atheist" tells me about a person: One thing that is not part of their belief system.

 

[Booko]

I assume you have a concept of what you think you are? Well that concept of yourself is based on what you believe about yourself.

Except for the part of myself that is based on observed behaviour. Which I would argue is the more important part.

People think they are all sorts of things. Sometimes their behaviour shows their belief is terribly incorrect.

One of your beliefs may be that you are an atheist based on the dictionary definition of an atheist. I am not disputing the dictionary. So you view yourself as an atheist and a Christian views themselves as a christian.

People believed things before dictionaries existed. Dictionaries are new-fangled, as human history goes.

Being without belief in God is not being without belief.
Your beliefs are the lense through which you both view the world. I have known many atheists and had this conversation many times before. And since I am saying this only through my lense you are free to disagree.

People can be atheists when no one around has a God-concept.

Your argument so far seems more semantic than anything.

 

[True Scotsman]

Atheism is not a truth statement.

I've read it four times and I can't make heads or tails of it. I give up.

Edit: Sorry, that was not meant for you Davian. I was responding to the OP and I guess I clicked the wrong quote button.

 

[John the Bpt]

Except for the part of myself that is based on observed behaviour. Which I would argue is the more important part.

People think they are all sorts of things. Sometimes their behaviour shows their belief is terribly incorrect.



People believed things before dictionaries existed. Dictionaries are new-fangled, as human history goes.



People can be atheists when no one around has a God-concept.

Your argument so far seems more semantic than anything.

Perhaps it would be better to ask how long do you think the God concept has been around and considering that it is present in most religions why did it ever come into being in the first place? This discussion seems semantic in general.

 

[John the Bpt]

Except for the part of myself that is based on observed behaviour. Which I would argue is the more important part.

People think they are all sorts of things. Sometimes their behaviour shows their belief is terribly incorrect.



People believed things before dictionaries existed. Dictionaries are new-fangled, as human history goes.



People can be atheists when no one around has a God-concept.

Your argument so far seems more semantic than anything.

Another belief that I have observed amongst atheists is that even the idea of God is completely absurd. Which I think to be rather ironic since agnostics are generally accepted amongst your ranks. From your own point of view it would look just as absurd to think their could be a god as actually believing in one. Maybe Atheism has grown to cult status now and you are just recruiting.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps it would be better to ask how long do you think the God concept has been around and considering that it is present in most religions why did it ever come into being in the first place?

Which god concept?

 

[John the Bpt]

Which god concept?

It makes no difference.

 

[Davian]

Another belief that I have observed amongst atheists is that even the idea of God is completely absurd.

Or, incoherent, undefined.

Which I think to be rather ironic since agnostics are generally accepted amongst your ranks.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

From your own point of view it would look just as absurd to think their could be a god as actually believing in one.

There are those that believe in ghost, devils, Bigfoot, Bermuda triangles, and extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, but when asked for evidence and a coherent description of what they are talking about, they come up empty handed.

Maybe Atheism has grown to cult status now and you are just recruiting.

They won't get me. I spend all of my free time hanging out with people that do not collect stamps.

 

[Booko]

Another belief that I have observed amongst atheists is that even the idea of God is completely absurd. Which I think to be rather ironic since agnostics are generally accepted amongst your ranks. From your own point of view it would look just as absurd to think their could be a god as actually believing in one. Maybe Atheism has grown to cult status now and you are just recruiting.

Maybe you need to check my profile and see what my religion displays as.

 

[John the Bpt]

Maybe you need to check my profile and see what my religion displays as.

Yes I should have. Your post had no relevance to what I said. .

 

[Belk]

Another belief that I have observed amongst atheists is that even the idea of God is completely absurd.

Since atheists are only bound by one commonality you can see a myriad of differing beliefs among them.

Which I think to be rather ironic since agnostics are generally accepted amongst your ranks.

I am an agnostic atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive and I fail to see how it would be ironic even if they where.

From your own point of view it would look just as absurd to think their could be a god as actually believing in one.

That is incorrect. I find it possible there could be a god. I have simply not found any evidence of gods that I felt was compelling.

Maybe Atheism has grown to cult status now and you are just recruiting.

Or perhaps you have an outsiders view of atheism and are making common mistakes on what it entails.

 

[Booko]

I am an agnostic atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive and I fail to see how it would be ironic even if they where.

Exactly. I'm an agnostic theist.

I find it possible there could be a god. I have simply not found any evidence of gods that I felt was compelling.

I think it's not possible to prove, in any strict sense of that term, that God or gods exist. If we could prove their existence they would be more advanced aliens, not metaphysical beings.

I am a theist because I have found a better explanation of the human condition than I could in atheism. But that is such a subjective thing I think it's fruitless to try to "prove the existence of God" to anyone else.

The very best I might do is explain my position and experience. It gels or it doesn't with someone else's experience.

Or perhaps you have an outsiders view of atheism and are making common mistakes on what it entails.

VERY common mistakes.

Even outsiders can learn enough to avoid the mistakes. But it would require listening, and I find very few are willing to do that.

It happens all too often when people find something unfathomable, their first instinct is to deny it's actually true. This can happen in matters of metaphysics of course, but it happens in many other areas of life as well.

Ask anyone with a chronic illness. They live in that world constantly. *sigh*

 

[Belk]

Exactly. I'm an agnostic theist.

I believe most theists would fall into that category. At least most of them with which I have had serious discussions.

I think it's not possible to prove, in any strict sense of that term, that God or gods exist. If we could prove their existence they would be more advanced aliens, not metaphysical beings.

I am a theist because I have found a better explanation of the human condition than I could in atheism. But that is such a subjective thing I think it's fruitless to try to "prove the existence of God" to anyone else.

The very best I might do is explain my position and experience. It gels or it doesn't with someone else's experience.

I envy you. I was a believer when I was young but then I went through a painful deconversion process. I sometimes regret that I no longer find myself able to believe in a higher power. I've struggled to find something spiritual that I can replace it with.

VERY common mistakes.

Even outsiders can learn enough to avoid the mistakes. But it would require listening, and I find very few are willing to do that.

Well, to be fair there are areas where people simply have no exposure to atheism. It is hard to learn about something if you have no interaction with it.

It happens all too often when people find something unfathomable, their first instinct is to deny it's actually true. This can happen in matters of metaphysics of course, but it happens in many other areas of life as well.

Ask anyone with a chronic illness. They live in that world constantly. *sigh*

Especially if it is one of the 'hidden' illnesses. Even people with more noticeable issues have difficulty. I used to work with a man who was wheel chair bound and had only limited use of his left arm. He said one of the hardest parts was that people would be so uncomfortable that they would just avoid him. Likely why he got a job dealing with people.

 

[Booko]

I believe most theists would fall into that category. At least most of them with which I have had serious discussions.

Serious discussions might be the key phrase there. Some people are around just for the proselytizing, and I don't find a lot of listening there, though with some careful work it can happen in time.

I envy you. I was a believer when I was young but then I went through a painful deconversion process. I sometimes regret that I no longer find myself able to believe in a higher power. I've struggled to find something spiritual that I can replace it with.

Oh, there's nothing to envy really. I was an atheist for years. For me it was not a deconversion process as much as an escape. I was raised religious, but I will not say it ever really sunk in.

As St. Paul says that bit about when he was a child he spoke like a child...what I had was that childish "faith" that crumbles when a person becomes an adult and can find no foundation in what they were raised, but only quicksand, or worse, demands to oppress themselves and others.

Well, maybe something did sink in. I always thought pretty highly of the red letters in my Bible, whether I believed in God or not.

Well, to be fair there are areas where people simply have no exposure to atheism. It is hard to learn about something if you have no interaction with it.

Oh, that is quite true. When I first encounter theists I assume they haven't had any exposure to atheism until I see evidence to the contrary, because the odds are in favor that's the case. At least it is where I live.

Even in my own religious community (Baha'i) where people come from all sorts of previous religious background, most people have not had much contact with straight up atheists. I field a lot of questions, and am happy to, as I think understanding where someone is coming from is always preferable when trying to discuss anything with anyone.

As for your current predicament, I can't comment on that directly. I'll just say as an atheist I undertook a study of anything religious with the express intent of understanding why humanity could so consistently believe in such stuff. And ended up religious. From my current perspective I'd say God has a great sense of humour.

In Baha'i circles the term "seeker" is used often. Seems like maybe the shoe fits? But it isn't about the destination so much as movement, so keep moving and who knows what you may find?

Especially if it is one of the 'hidden' illnesses.

Yup, that's especially what I had in mind. I've improved greatly, and there's some hope I may actually heal completely, but in the meantime I still get people saying silly things like "but you don't look sick". Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Even people with more noticeable issues have difficulty. I used to work with a man who was wheel chair bound and had only limited use of his left arm. He said one of the hardest parts was that people would be so uncomfortable that they would just avoid him. Likely why he got a job dealing with people.

It's like people talk to the wheelchair and not the person. And treat people like having a wheelchair is contagious. Or they can't hear because they cannot walk, so you'd better talk REALLY LOUD!

I know they mean well and don't get what they're doing, but people who are careless can still hurt you even if they mean well.

I can't begin to express how thankful I am the Internet exists. I would not still be alive without it, and neither would my daughter or my best friend.

As well as finding answers to our problems (because MDs sure aren't, except maybe in Functional Med), we find a ready source of people who don't treat us like we're nuts instead of just ill and trying to deal as best as we can.

In an odd way, if anything this illness does deepen my belief in a higher something. I know this is all perspective and not any sort of rigorous proof of anything, but let's just say the web of connections of people I had to run into in order to remain alive has been so large and seemingly random I find it difficult to believe it's just coincidence and not more like Providence.

Being chronically ill is a tough way to learn some spiritual lessons, but it certainly has rammed home a few for me.

 

[Blue Wren]

Hi there,

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?

For example, say I say "I promote atheism, I just hate atheists" I am saying there is a thing called atheism, to which atheists wish they were known for belonging to, but because there is no creed that says "atheists must love one another" I implicitly deny the meaning of belonging to atheism.

Have I not therefore become the perfect atheist, since no one can scrutinize my atheism, on the basis of my being an atheist (that I hate)? Because I hate them? And is this not what atheism is: presuming belonging on the basis of hate, that has no real object? So it is thus refuted?

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

 

[Booko]

That seems to have been the general reaction.

I don't even know if the OP is still around in this thread. Well, people get busy. After all it's tax season in the US.

 

[KEBO12345]

1) Atheism requires identity, but denies God



I think the atheist position requires a God.
They are assigned the last God off the rank by default.

The God of the atheist mind is the God of absolute materialism.
loosely the God of Probablity.
Few atheists would be stupid enough to consider there is no causation.
For example where did our sun come from?

Whatever they think caused the sun is a big clue to their God.
This God gets things done by the forces of nature.
Like Newtonian mechanics, gravity and electromagnetism.
Everything (they assume) can be broken down to its ultimate mechanism.

However the atheist model does not extnd such materialism into
radical materialism where the matter itself determines its own causation.
That I guess, is the difference between atheists and panpsychists.

 

[John the Bpt]

1) Atheism requires identity, but denies God



I think the atheist position requires a God.
They are assigned the last God off the rank by default.

The God of the atheist mind is the God of absolute materialism.
loosely the God of Probablity.
Few atheists would be stupid enough to consider there is no causation.
For example where did our sun come from?

Whatever they think caused the sun is a big clue to their God.
This God gets things done by the forces of nature.
Like Newtonian mechanics, gravity and electromagnetism.
Everything (they assume) can be broken down to its ultimate mechanism.

However the atheist model does not extnd such materialism into
radical materialism where the matter itself determines its own causation.
That I guess, is the difference between atheists and panpsychists.

Atheism is a disbelief which is another form of a belief. It is a belief unto itself and does not require any other belief. It simply refutes god for whatever reason or it does not even require a reason at all.

 

[John the Bpt]

1) Atheism requires identity, but denies God



I think the atheist position requires a God.
They are assigned the last God off the rank by default.

The God of the atheist mind is the God of absolute materialism.
loosely the God of Probablity.
Few atheists would be stupid enough to consider there is no causation.
For example where did our sun come from?

Whatever they think caused the sun is a big clue to their God.
This God gets things done by the forces of nature.
Like Newtonian mechanics, gravity and electromagnetism.
Everything (they assume) can be broken down to its ultimate mechanism.

However the atheist model does not extnd such materialism into
radical materialism where the matter itself determines its own causation.
That I guess, is the difference between atheists and panpsychists.

You might find this concept more interesting.

"The computational theory of mind holds that the mind is a computation that arises from the brain acting as a computing machine. The theory can be elaborated in many ways, the most popular of which is that the brain is a computer and the mind is the result of the program that the brain runs.[3][bless and do not curse]A[bless and do not curse]program[bless and do not curse]is the finite description of an[bless and do not curse]algorithm[bless and do not curse]oreffective procedure, which prescribes a deterministic sequence of discrete actions that produces outputs based only on inputs and the internal states (memory) of the computing machine. For any admissible input, algorithms terminate in a finite number of steps. So the computational theory of mind is the claim that the mind is a computation of a machine (the brain) that derives output representations of the world from input representations and internal memory in a deterministic (non-random) way that is consistent with the[bless and do not curse]theory of computation."