There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[ToddNotTodd]

...the problem is that not all atheist are like you, quatona. Some have little to no intention of opening themselves up and explaining 'how' they've constructed their own personal view of atheism ("no matter what label they or I put on it"), or much of anything else for that matter. No, a good number of them are simply presenting themselves to Christians, whether her on CF, or anywhere else ... to raise Cain and push to eradicate Christianity like the pesky idiocy they deem it to be.

Name one atheist here who's here only to "raise cain" or eradicate Christianity. Because I haven't seen any.

Besides, my question to Todd still stands

What question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Name one atheist here who's here only to "raise cain" or eradicate Christianity. Because I haven't seen any.



What question?

The question you've already answered. It still stands because even though you've answered it, I'd like to see how many people have an identical definition to yours.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The question you've already answered. It still stands because even though you've answered it, I'd like to see how many people have an identical definition to yours.

What if we just get rid of the labels completely across the board, because I'm completely game for that. Of course that would mean that everyone who identifies as a theist will need to comprehensively define the god or gods they believe in. Which is what us atheists (or whatever you want to call us) have been trying to get theists to do for as long as I've been a member of this site...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What if we just get rid of the labels completely across the board, because I'm completely game for that. Of course that would mean that everyone who identifies as a theist will need to comprehensively define the god or gods they believe in. Which is what us atheists (or whatever you want to call us) have been trying to get theists to do for as long as I've been a member of this site...

...I'm not the one who is claiming that God is fully effable. You don't see me resorting to the Cosmological Argument, do you? Or the Teleological Argument? Or the Argument from Design? Or the defense (or necessity) of an Inerrant Bible? Or that God is directly tangible so we can make decisive and super-specific taxonomies of His nature, do you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...I'm not the one who is claiming that God is fully effable. You don't see me resorting to the Cosmological Argument, do you? Or the Teleological Argument? Or the Argument from Design? Or the defense (or necessity) of an Inerrant Bible? Or that God is directly tangible so we can make decisive and super-specific taxonomies of His nature, do you?

I didn't mean you specifically. Jeezzzzzz, not everything is about you...

BUT, if we come to the consensus that the term "god" can't adequately be described, and if us "whatevers" need an adequately described god to be able to converse with theists...

 

[Silmarien]

No one has the power to "erase" agnosticism, however you define it. That's nonsense. If you feel like the definition of atheism in common use now interferes with your definition of agnosticism, then when speaking to an atheist, agree on positions first without the use of labels. It's that simple.

I frankly think that your definition of atheism erases genuine atheists and collapses everything under one semantical roof for no apparent reason. And given that someone else in this thread tried to argue that my agnosticism towards the question of alien abduction was actually disbelief despite me quite explicitly stating it was not, I think it quite clear that it's not nonsense to worry that agnostics are being erased. Perhaps you do not experience it, not being committed to agnosticism yourself, but it happens.

So my lack of belief in (nearly) all god claims I've been presented has a burden of proof? It seems ridiculous to me, but perhaps you have a more thorough explanation that will make it clearer.

As soon as you enter the public arena and start discussing theism, atheism, and agnosticism with other people, yes, it would most certainly be helpful for you to explain your disbelief instead of screaming shrilly that yours is the default position.

Resorting to childish retorts calling others childish?

Oh the irony...

A lack of belief would indicate that someone either does not have the mental capacity or the interest to look into a question and decide where they stand on it. I do not see what is childish about pointing out that this would put you in the same category as children, as they generally speaking do not yet have the intellectual capacity to address the problem.

I suppose it is understandable that an atheist might lack belief rather than disbelieve because they have never looked into theism deeply enough to really form an opinion one way or the other, but I do not know why anyone would champion that approach to the question.

 

[Silmarien]

What if we just get rid of the labels completely across the board, because I'm completely game for that. Of course that would mean that everyone who identifies as a theist will need to comprehensively define the god or gods they believe in. Which is what us atheists (or whatever you want to call us) have been trying to get theists to do for as long as I've been a member of this site...

Oh, that's easy. My sympathies lie with the classical theism of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonic, and medieval theology. Very Catholic and Orthodox, fully apophatic, God as Being Itself, currently defended by Christian philosophers like David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser, though I personally lean more to the former's views, as we share concerns about the limits of reason. I don't go fullblown Thomist, but I'm intrigued by talk of God as Pure Act, Final Cause, and First Mover. Though more by the first two, actually.

And I've got a bit of a fascination for Vedanta Hinduism as well, though I do not see the point in going full Advaita and claiming that everyone and everything is really Brahman. It could be so, but it doesn't seem like a useful assumption to make if you want to treat this life like it matters.

 

[KCfromNC]

...what does your pronoun "it" refer to specifically?

The word "opinion" from the last sentence.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can. But agnostic atheism is disbelief in God coupled with the admission that you do not know. It's not a lack of belief in God.

Huh? Disbelief is literally a lack of belief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The word "opinion" from the last sentence.

Yeah, well .....so is yours (i.e. "an opinion"). Touché at Ground Zero!

 

[KCfromNC]

I frankly think that your definition of atheism erases genuine atheists and collapses everything under one semantical roof for no apparent reason.

Which ones? The non-belief definition includes both people who lack belief and those who actively know gods aren't real. Who is being erased?

 

[Silmarien]

Huh? Disbelief is literally a lack of belief.

I lack beliefs about Marxism because I have not read deeply enough on the subject to really know whether or not I could endorse communism as a functional sociopolitical system.

My view towards modern conservativism is better described as disbelief, as there are aspects of that sociopolitical framework that I am quite convinced are wrong.

Conflating lack of belief and disbelief ignores this very real distinction.

Which ones? The non-belief definition includes both people who lack belief and those who actively know gods aren't real. Who is being erased?

Generally speaking, it is better to use language in a way that promotes clarity, not confusion. I am not sure why you think that genuine atheists know that God does not exist, though; belief claims do not turn into epistemological claims simply because you state them more forcefully.

 

[quatona]

...the problem is that not all atheist are like you, quatona. Some have little to no intention of opening themselves up and explaining 'how' they've constructed their own personal view of atheism ("no matter what label they or I put on it"), or much of anything else for that matter. No, a good number of them are simply presenting themselves to Christians, whether her on CF, or anywhere else ... to raise Cain and push to eradicate Christianity like the pesky idiocy they deem it to be.

Having been here for quite a long time I feel I don´t have much reason to agree with your evaluation of the resident self-professing atheists. Not sure how you got to insinuating that many here want to eradicate Christianity.
But whatever. Let´s just assume this is the case. I still don´t understand how lacking belief in gods and labeling that "atheism" would help in any way with raising Cain and eradicating Christianity.
So, maybe it´s true and you are being persecuted here - but I would like to be shown the connection between the semantics topic at hand and your persecution.
Well, maybe - since you seem not to shy away from making assumptions about their hidden motives - you are actually assuming that they are dishonest when describing their position as "lacking belief in gods". But then that would be the issue you should point out. What label they use isn´t helping their attempts at persecuting you one iota, it seems.

 

[Chriliman]

I lack beliefs about Marxism because I have not read deeply enough on the subject to really know whether or not I could endorse communism as a functional sociopolitical system.

My view towards modern conservativism is better described as disbelief, as there are aspects of that sociopolitical framework that I am quite convinced are wrong.

Conflating lack of belief and disbelief ignores this very real distinction.

I'd agree here. I lack belief in things of which I have little to no knowledge about, but I believe or disbelieve things of which I believe I have adequate knowledge in order to make a conclusion either way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Having been here for quite a long time I feel I don´t have much reason to agree with your evaluation of the resident self-professing atheists. Not sure how you got to insinuating that many here want to eradicate Christianity.
But whatever. Let´s just assume this is the case. I still don´t understand how lacking belief in gods and labeling that "atheism" would help in any way with raising Cain and eradicating Christianity.
So, maybe it´s true and you are being persecuted here - but I would like to be shown the connection between the semantics topic at hand and your persecution.
Well, maybe - since you seem not to shy away from making assumptions about their hidden motives - you are actually assuming that they are dishonest when describing their position as "lacking belief in gods". But then that would be the issue you should point out. What label they use isn´t helping their attempts at persecuting you one iota, it seems.

...lol! We might have different views on what constitutes "persecution." I am by no means trying to imply that when an atheist opens his (or her) mouth to spray out caustic comments toward my faith that I also think this in and of itself counts as "persecution." No, I'm afraid my understanding of this is a bit more complex than that of the average, paranoid Christian.

And yes, like a few Christians, some atheists are not honest ... or maybe they are just not blessed by nature with the acumen which characterizes some of their fellow atheists.

 

[Dirk1540]

Since everyone is open here about the way they use the word, and about their actual positions, there is no trickery involved.

That's not the point. You can't say in one breath "Stop arguing about the meaning of a word and instead address the position!" And then turn around and say in the next breath "Atheism doesn't need to defend a position"...ANYMORE that is, compliments of Flew altering the definition. I can be open about using the word 'Blue' to refer to black. I can be open about using 'Jesus' to refer to Bhudda. This 'As long as we're open about it' rule of yours (if it were honored) would lead to academic madness. It's not that we're obsessed about how a word is defined, it's that YOU are using the definition of a word as a sheild to free yourselves from defending a position.

I don't get why people need to dwell on these semantics.

Because of what I said above. Yes arguments over semantics are silly. Using semantics to excuse yourself from the responsibility of defending a position is not mere silliness however, it's a tactic.

All that knowledge is indeed a good reason to stop believing the positive claim.
None of that knowledge, however, is capable of disproving santa.
At best, it makes santa very unlikely.
In other words: the factual positive claim "stanta does not exist", is technically just as unsupportable as the positive claim.

Ok then here's your argument, that if you can't absolutely prove something 100% you can't make a truth claim. That if you are dealing in the categories of 'Very Unlikely' or 'Very Likely' you must be agnostic. I don't agree with this, people make non absolute truth claims all the time, without feeling the need to redefine terms.

As a matter of fact, in the handful of times (maybe 7 or 8) that I've pinned a Christian down to tell me what percentage of them is convinced that Jesus is God, ONE time only did the Christian tell me 100%. Usually I was told 90%. Do we now need to redefine theism because of this?? Almost every truth claim would need redefining if you require 100% certainty.

The only people here who are engaging in "semantic trickery" are the theists who keep insisting on telling us atheists what our views, beliefs and claims really are.

Theists don't have an Anthony Flew who redefined 'Theism' in the 1970s to over turn the need to defend it. We're just calling a spade a spade, if there is 'Trickery' it absolutely isn't on us.

Even if you could demonstrate this is true, how is accurately describing what one believes "trickery"?

No, it WAS accurate, then it was re-defined to release it from being associated with a burden of proof. That's trickery.

So, would you say that every atheist can have his/her own definition of 'atheism'? Just wondering...

...

Of course.

Wow!

 

[variant]

That's not the point. You can't say in one breath "Stop arguing about the meaning of a word and instead address the position!" And then turn around and say in the next breath "Atheism doesn't need to defend a position"...ANYMORE that is, compliments of Flew altering the definition.

The issue isn't the definition.

Everyone who is an Atheist because they don't think God is in evidence can only be argued out of that position by presenting evidence.

If the believer comes up to that person and demands that the definition of Atheism requires them to demonstrate that "no Gods exist" it's genuinely simply trying to re-frame the argument of why the Atheist finds the idea of God unconvincing.

You must address such a position with evidence, if you don't have any, you don't have an argument that needs to be addressed.

If you need clarity or defense of my position refer to this post:
There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

God is ill defined.
God is unsupported.
God lacks a good reason for belief.

 

[quatona]

...lol! We might have different view on what constitutes "persecution." I am by no means trying to imply that when an atheist open his (or her) mouth to spray out caustic comments toward my faith that also think that in and of itself counts as "persecution." No, I'm afraid my understanding of that is a bit more complex that the average, paranoid Christian.

Yeah. People disagree with me all the time, too. Plus, sometimes I don´t like their attitude.

And yes, like a few Christians, some atheists are not honest ... or maybe just not blessed by nature with the acumen that characterizes some of their fellow atheists.

Fair enough. But I´d really like to be riddled this: Even if it´s true that the position they pretend to hold ("I lack believe in gods") isn´t really their position (but in fact they silently claim "Gods do not exist", "Gods are evil" or whatever you feel is their position) - in the given situation they just argue from (and at best: for) the position they claim to hold. So who cares?
I really don´t understand how the definition of "atheist" as "lacking belief in gods" is the problem, or how tackling this definition as inaccurate helps solving it.

If you feel that your suspicion that the person opposite isn´t honest gets in the way of a fruitful discussion - why not just say that? Why instead start a pointless label debate, in which you actually hurt those who are honest about "I lack belief in gods" more than those who might be dishonest?

 

[quatona]

That's not the point. You can't say in one breath "Stop arguing about the meaning of a word and instead address the position!" And then turn around and say in the next breath "Atheism doesn't need to defend a position"...

What I am saying is: "I lack belief in X" doesn´t need a defense. (And it´s completely irrelevant what label you put on this statement).

ANYMORE that is, compliments of Flew altering the definition. I can be open about using the word 'Blue' to refer to black.

In this case I wouldn´t see a reason to accuse you of dishonesty or "semantics trickery". You have given me all the information needed to understand you when you say "blue".

It's not that we're obsessed about how a word is defined, it's that YOU are using the definition of a word as a sheild to free yourselves from defending a position.

Since "I lack belief in gods" describes my stance quite accurately, I don´t have any need to defend a position and never had. So I don´t know why you feel I have to try to free myself from anything.

Because of what I said above. Yes arguments over semantics are silly. Using semantics to excuse yourself from the responsibility of defending a position is not mere silliness however, it's a tactic.

What label you or I put on my stance is completely irrelevant for the question whether I have to defend a position or not. So let´s call this stance "non-theism" or "banana milk shake" or whatever you think it should be called - the label doesn´t change my stance. You almost make it sound like the label were important to me. It isn´t. I want my stance to be acknowledged, that´s all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief." It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all. I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult. And making atheists look too uninformed to have any opinion at all, frankly. There's really nothing wrong with saying you don't believe! Bon courage, incroyants !

I don't believe...

Furthermore, I don't really understand what part of "a lack of belief" is difficult for you to understand. What part are you struggling with? The "lack" part? Or the "belief" part?

I have no problem saying that I don't believe...but I think a lot of atheists say "lack of belief" because if they simply say they don't believe in god...it's almost inevitable that some numbskull who doesn't understand the burden of proof starts asking them to provide evidence for their position.