What would it take to disprove atheism?

[pyramid33]

Did he say anything about not being able to comprehend incoherent posts on an internet forum?

Lol.

We all have beliefs and I have no reason to doubt any of them.


Until I have found the one true answer.

 

[pyramid33]

I think Agnosticism is the default position, .

How can agnosticism be a default when none are willing to take credit for it?

 

[pyramid33]

In the end, labels don't matter.

The word "atheist" is a stupid word anyway. It doesn't tell you anything. It's a word that describes what you don't believe. It's what you do believe that matters. So identifying someone by what they don't believe is rather hollow.

Well Christianity just means believing in Christ.


If a person is given the choice to believe loving one another is better than murdering one another and labeled an infidel by muslims, certainly we cannot claim to be muslim since they demand all humans to think murdering is okay. I'm saying, if you are against murder and a person tells you murder is fine, surely you are free from labels and prefer not to murder or be murdered or encourage murder for that matter.


For example. God says we, as humans should never murder. If you agree with that, you believe in the same belief a Christian believes in. At least to an extent.

 

[pyramid33]

I've already said how I could be convinced. Let me state it differently. Prove to me that reality is subjective. If you do that you will be most of the way there?

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.



We have read genesis where it speaks of Adam being spoken into the existence. Christ is spoken into existence, the promise of God. Christ is the spoken word of God Himself. Christ is Gods word and promise to all of us, that He has not given up and do all that He has promised.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LoL it is kind of interesting how there are different forms of "nonbelief".

Forms that have been introduced to the world by believers, not by non-believers.

It's because of theists that there is a word to identify all those not part of their believer-club.

Indeed, astrologers don't feel the need to do that.
Then again, astrologers aren't trying to push legislation based on the position of Mars.

I know that part of the reason for this is that Atheism carries a sort of stigma that many nonbelievers wish to detach themselves from. A lot of people feel ostracized by being identified as a "Militant Atheist". Society also has this kind of twisted need to categorize everything. We live in a day and age where everything is defined, and if it can't be easily classified it's an "anomaly" of some sort. Ultimately it's just another way of dividing people and creating conflicts.

The fact of the matter is that these labels are only "hot topics" in religious circles or in communities where religiosity is high.

Over here in daily life, I NEVER encounter these words. Nobody cares.
I'm gratefull for it as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think it's stupid at all, and the word has a lot of use in this day and age.

Yeah well... stupid times call for stupid words I guess.

The thing you're missing is if we lived in a world without religion, then the term atheist would have as much meaning as a non-astrologer.

I'ld say its meaning wouldn't change. It would still be a word that tries to define you by what you do not believe. Defining a person by what he is not is stupid and hollow. If such words are important and required in certain circles, then those circles are stupid and hollow by extension.

Yes, I fully agree that stupid and hollow circles exist where importance is placed on stupid and hollow labels. None of it makes it any less stupid and hollow.

Wouldn't you agree to that as a non-football-star, non-facist, non-communist, non-muslim, non-hooligan, non-cannibal, non-nihilist, non-..................................?

On the flip side, if we lived in a world where 90% of the people believed Santa Claus was real, the label describing the remaining 10% would have a lot of utility.

And the utility would be stupid and hollow.

At the same time, I disagree with you that such labels are necessariy in stupid and hollow times.

Consider this for a second.... Evolution theory. There are more people on the planet that accept it as those that don't.

But do we have a word for people who don't believe in evolution that defines them as "not believing in evolution"? No, we do not.

What we do have are words that defined them by what they DO believe and in those words the opposition to evolution is embedded. Terms like old earth creationist, young earth creationist, intelligent design proponents, etc.

We label them not by what they don't believe, but by what they DO believe.

"Atheist" is the only word I know of that fully defines a person by what the person does NOT believe.

The best parallell in language I can come up with is the word "assymmetrical", which identifies a shape as not being symmetrical.

But for labeling people? Nope, I know of no other example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well Christianity just means believing in Christ.


If a person is given the choice to believe loving one another is better than murdering one another and labeled an infidel by muslims, certainly we cannot claim to be muslim since they demand all humans to think murdering is okay. I'm saying, if you are against murder and a person tells you murder is fine, surely you are free from labels and prefer not to murder or be murdered or encourage murder for that matter.


For example. God says we, as humans should never murder. If you agree with that, you believe in the same belief a Christian believes in. At least to an extent.

This made very little sense to me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'ld say its meaning wouldn't change. It would still be a word that tries to define you by what you do not believe. Defining a person by what he is not is stupid and hollow. If such words are important and required in certain circles, then those circles are stupid and hollow by extension.

Yes, I fully agree that stupid and hollow circles exist where importance is placed on stupid and hollow labels. None of it makes it any less stupid and hollow.

Wouldn't you agree to that as a non-football-star, non-facist, non-communist, non-muslim, non-hooligan, non-cannibal, non-nihilist, non-..................................?

Why is it stupid and hollow? Just because there aren't many situations that would compare to theism/atheism doesn't mean it's stupid or hollow. It just means that dichotomy is a rare circumstance.

If we lived in a world without any belief in a god, then labelling yourself as atheist would be as silly as labelling yourself as a non football star. The point you're missing though is that we don't live in that world.

If we lived in a world where 85% of the population were football stars, you would need some kind of label to identify yourself as not one of them.

And the utility would be stupid and hollow.

Nonsense, utility is utility. If it serves a useful purpose, then it's not stupid, nor hollow.

At the same time, I disagree with you that such labels are necessariy in stupid and hollow times.

And that's plainly wrong, as I use the label atheist, and people can identify my position based on that. It is a useful label.

Consider this for a second.... Evolution theory. There are more people on the planet that accept it as those that don't.

But do we have a word for people who don't believe in evolution that defines them as "not believing in evolution"? No, we do not.

Sure we do, I hear people being labelled as anti-science or anti-evolutionist all the time. Ken Ham or Ray Comfort come to mind.

What we do have are words that defined them by what they DO believe and in those words the opposition to evolution is embedded. Terms like old earth creationist, young earth creationist, intelligent design proponents, etc.

That is correct, however we also use the terms I listed above. Anti-evolutionist is a useful label for a group people of any number of varied belief systems that take a contrary position to evolutionary science. In a debate on the topic you'd have the pro evolution and the anti evolution factions.

We label them not by what they don't believe, but by what they DO believe.

Not always. In fact any debate on a particular topic is always structured as those for the topic, and those who hold a contrary view. The contrary view does not have to be a positive belief, it can simply be one criticizing or poking holes in the subject matter if it is fallacious in some way.

"Atheist" is the only word I know of that fully defines a person by what the person does NOT believe.

Anti-evolutionist. There, you learned a second word.

The best parallell in language I can come up with is the word "assymmetrical", which identifies a shape as not being symmetrical.

Atheist means not theist, or without theism.

But for labeling people? Nope, I know of no other example.

See above.

 

[UnReAL13]

Theism means a belief in the existence of at least one god.

The prefix A- means "without" in the English Language. For example, Asexual means without sexuality, asymmetry means without symmetry, asymptomatic means without symptoms, etc.

Atheism means without theism, meaning you do not have a belief in a god (even a deistic one). It's not a half-translation, it's fully in line with the rest of the English language.

To get the term "without god", you'd have to refer to to the Greek word "Atheos" which is a root word of the English phrase, but of course not an English word itself. We don't generally put the meaning of archaic language onto modern words, so I don't see why you're trying to do it here....

Here's my point: there is a position, called the Agnostic position, where one's answer can simply be "I Don't Know" without actually rejecting the claim of god's existence. Agnostics consider all possibilities, without making any assumptions. I've been told "you can't be neutral" before, but my argment is yes, you can be completely neutral towards this subject.

 

[UnReAL13]

How can agnosticism be a default when none are willing to take credit for it?

Take credit for being Agnostic? I don't really understand what you mean here.

 

[Aldebaran]

Agnostics consider all possibilities, without making any assumptions. I've been told "you can't be neutral" before, but my argment is yes, you can be completely neutral towards this subject.

Once the person has considered all the possibilities, doesn't he eventually have to come to a conclusion? If not, then he's left not knowing or believing anything at all.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Here's my point: there is a position, called the Agnostic position, where one's answer can simply be "I Don't Know" without actually rejecting the claim of god's existence. Agnostics consider all possibilities, without making any assumptions. I've been told "you can't be neutral" before, but my argment is yes, you can be completely neutral towards this subject.

You're making the false assumption that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, they aren't. One deals with a position of knowledge, one deals with a position of belief. Labelling yourself as agnostic says nothing about your beliefs in regards to theism or atheism.

When it comes to a position of belief, there are only two states you can be in. You are either in a position of having accepted a belief, or you are in a position of not having accepted that belief. There is no middle ground, if you are unsure, then you have not accepted that belief.

 

[UnReAL13]

Once the person has considered all the possibilities, doesn't he eventually have to come to a conclusion? If not, then he's left not knowing or believing anything at all.

Exactly.

 

[UnReAL13]

You're making the false assumption that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, they aren't. One deals with a position of knowledge, one deals with a position of belief. Labelling yourself as agnostic says nothing about your beliefs in regards to theism or atheism.

When it comes to a position of belief, there are only two states you can be in. You are either in a position of having accepted a belief, or you are in a position of not having accepted that belief. There is no middle ground, if you are unsure, then you have not accepted that belief.

Plenty of room for middle ground. To say there's only "either, or" is just black-and-white thinking. People need to see more of the gray.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Exactly.

Exactly, so if you are in a position where you don't believe the claim (in this case about god), then you are an atheist.

That does not mean you have outright 100% rejected the claim, with no hope of ever revisiting it. What it means is that at this moment in time you have not accepted any theological claim about the existence of God as true.

In short, you do not have a theological belief.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Plenty of room for middle ground. To say there's only "either, or" is just black-and-white thinking. People need to see more of the gray.

It's not black or white thinking, it's basic logic.

You either hold a belief, or you do not hold that belief. It's simple negation.

 

[UnReAL13]

It's not black or white thinking, it's basic logic.

You either hold a belief, or you do not hold that belief. It's simple negation.

Or you can simply hold possibilities. The logic and perception of manind is obviously flawed and hindered.

 

[UnReAL13]

Exactly, so if you are in a position where you don't believe the claim (in this case about god), then you are an atheist.

That does not mean you have outright 100% rejected the claim, with no hope of ever revisiting it. What it means is that at this moment in time you have not accepted any theological claim about the existence of God as true.

In short, you do not have a theological belief.

I reject your claim that I'm an Atheist under the rule of A-Atheism. I am without Atheism. Ignosticism FTW.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Or you can simply hold possibilities. The logic and perception of manind is obviously flawed and hindered.

What do you mean by possibilities? How does that not fit into the belief / lacking belief paradigm?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I reject your claim that I'm an Atheist under the rule of A-Atheism. I am without Atheism. Ignosticism FTW.

Ignosticism is a form of Atheism, I hate to tell you that.....