3 best reasons for atheism?

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I gave one example. Personal Revelation. Atheists do not accept it in any theist as evidence for a god. But theists themselves also do not accept it from theists of different religions either. So there is one of many examples.

What are you basing this on ? I would agree that atheists don't accept personal revelation as evidence for god however i disagree that theists can't or won't accept the personal revelations of those of other faiths. Of course some won't but equally many will. A personal revelation is just that, personal. No one else can experience it for you. So a Christian for example is more than capable of accepting that a muslim has had a personal revelation without contradicting their own faith.

In fact many people of religious faith would contend that everyone is worshiping the same God, they're all just arriving there from different directions. That alone blows the quote out of the water.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Holy Texts are another of the many examples. Someone waving the Bible around saying it is evidence or even proof of god will not be taken seriously by atheists because it is generally a circular argument. Similarly however theists waving their holy book of choice around in the air will not lend similar credence to someone else waving their book around. Ask a muslim sometime why the Bible is not evidence that Jesus was the son of god and rose against after three days being entirely dead.

Again see above... It's not quite as simple as you like to suggest it is. Again a Christian for example is capable of respecting the fact that for a Muslim, the quoran is the word of their god. They don't have to agree with it or adopt if for themselves but they can respect and accept the position. An atheist can't.

The quote is flawed because it makes very general assumptions about those of faith. Assumptions don't work at the best of times, let alone when we're dealing with a topic as diverse and complex as human faith. I do get the point he's trying to make and it's a valid argument but that doesn't make it perfect.

That aside, I had a bit of a search on the author and it's clear that he was just some dude on a forum like this who happened to come up with a slightly clever quote one day. But he's also come out with gems like this...

"When I (as an atheist) am good. when I don't steal when I can, when I don't lie even when it would benefit me, when I return a lost wallet, when I help others etc... I do it for no other reason than to be good, my actions are selflessly good.

When a theist does good, he usually does it to please his god or avoid his god's hell, the theist is selfishly good."

There's just so much wrong with this statement that it's difficult to know where to start but if this is the level of discourse he proudly publishes online, i'll talk his ramblings with a very large pinch of salt.

Now, i've dealt with your points maybe you can deal with the ones i've raised that you conveniently ignored in your last response..

How do you reconcile your position that atheists and theists reject god / other gods for identical reasons when the primary reason for an atheists position is lack of evidence. In other words, you're claiming that a theist rejects all other gods because there's a lack of evidence for those gods. That just doesn't make sense so please clarify how you come to that conclusion.

And you also stated...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And THAT is the core purpose of the quote. To show that it is not just a case of atheism and theism at direct 1:1 loggerheads with each other. But there is in fact much common ground to explore their in their rejection of other religions and gods....

Can you give some examples of this common ground..

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

What are you basing this on ? I would agree that atheists don't accept personal revelation as evidence for god however i disagree that theists can't or won't accept the personal revelations of those of other faiths.

I am not saying "cant or wont" ever. I am not a black and white, 1 or 0, person. I am talking about common trends and what happens often.

I am saying that VERY OFTEN atheists and theists share their reasons for rejecting other faiths and faith claims. And VERY OFTEN theists will not accept the personal revelation of others. Ask the majority of Christians you know how many of them accept the personal revelations shown to Mohammad as he wrote the Koran and was told not only was it a personal revelation from god, but the final one. Ask all the Muslims you meet how many of them accept the personal revelations of Joseph Smith. The list goes on. At some length.

Yet proponents OF those religions will declare relevance and credibility for these personal revelations. Again at some length. So yes, there are many theists who will happily lend credence to the personal revelation within their own religion and supporting their own religion, while rejecting it in others. Which is the kind of "common ground" of which I speak in my posts.

Swanner wrote: »

Again see above... It's not quite as simple as you like to suggest it is.

Perhaps if I was, or ever did, suggest it was "simple" you might have a point. But not for the first time you appear to be choosing to reply to a position I never expressed, nor hold.

Swanner wrote: »

Again a Christian for example is capable of respecting the fact that for a Muslim, the quoran is the word of their god. They don't have to agree with it or adopt if for themselves but they can respect and accept the position. An atheist can't.

You do not speak for atheists or what they can or can not accept. Actually you are entirely wrong. I very much do accept that for THEM it is the word of their god and that is THEIR position. So while you sit there declaring from your pedastal what I can not do, I defy you by sitting here proving you wrong by actually doing it.

What I AM talking about is not accepting what their position is, but adopting or rejecting that position in myself. And what I AM talking about is that the reasons atheists do not adopt that position, is quite often highly similar to the reasons theists do not accept it in other theists too.

Swanner wrote: »

But he's also come out with gems like this...

Ah we discussed this tactic with OEJ not a few days ago. I am discussing the quote and what it means. Anything else the author of the quote might have said and done could not be less relevant to me. But such diversions are a common tactic on forums. When someone quotes X someone else will ignore the quote and the topic and go "Oh that person.... well that person is X and the problem with X is...." and they run off on irrelevant tangents to dodge the original discussion.

The most common example of this in my own experience being if you quote anyone then someone will go "Ah that person is a liberal/conservative and the problem with liberalism/conservatism is...." and suddenly you are not talking about the topic, or the quote, at all anymore.

So yea I will ignore your ad hominem deflection attempt against the author of the quote and stick to talking about the quote itself and it's meaning. Any problem you have with the author or anything else he has done or said.... you can take it up with either him or someone else. Not me.

Swanner wrote: »

Now, i've dealt with your points maybe you can deal with the ones i've raised that you conveniently ignored in your last response..

Except outside the fantasy la la world in your head, I did no such thing, and I ignored nothing at all.

Swanner wrote: »

How do you reconcile your position that atheists and theists reject god / other gods for identical reasons when the primary reason for an atheists position is lack of evidence.

I require no such reconciliation as, for the Nth time, you are asking me to defend a position I neither hold nor have expressed. Anywhere. Ever. What the "primary" reason is has nothing to do with my point. All my point is is to point out that OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

So no reconciliation of that sort is required in my actual position, so perhaps you should take it up with someone who holds the position you imagine.

Swanner wrote: »

Can you give some examples of this common ground..

I gave two already. That you do not LIKE them as answers to this question does not mean I have failed to answer the question, nor does it support your fantasy world claim that I ignored your points or questions.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am saying that VERY OFTEN atheists and theists share their reasons for rejecting other faiths and faith claims. And VERY OFTEN theists will not accept the personal revelation of others.

You've changed your wording quite significantly there... You've even capped the salient words yourself...

You originally made a definitive statement and I quote....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

an atheist and, say, a christian share disbelief in all the OTHER gods, for all the SAME reasons.

So it started out as a sure thing but you weren't quite so sure in your wording here...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

the OP is atheist towards all gods for many (if not even all) the same reasons

Or here...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

much (sometimes even ALL) of the reasons they have for it are identical

And now were really not so sure at all because it's gone from a definitive statement of fact to being "very likely".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

they BOTH reject all those other gods forvery likely many of the same reasons as each other.

Keep backtracking at this rate and you'll be agreeing with me in no time

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I very much do accept that for THEM it is the word of their god and that is THEIR position.

Do you really ? Without any evidence to support the claim ? So you wouldn't challenge them on the lack of evidence ? Instead you would accept that they have had a personal revelation and have communicated directly with their god ? That's an odd perspective for an atheist and appears a little contradictory but your views are your views and I'm sure you've reconciled them for yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah we discussed this tactic with OEJ not a few days ago. I am discussing the quote and what it means. Anything else the author of the quote might have said and done could not be less relevant to me.

Unless it supports your position... For example, the fact that he's atheist is relevant to you...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But such diversions are a common tactic on forums. When someone quotes X someone else will ignore the quote and the topic and go "Oh that person.... well that person is X and the problem with X is...." and they run off on irrelevant tangents to dodge the original discussion.

But i didn't ignore the quote. In fact quite the contrary i've spent a fair bit of time discussing the original quote directly with you and without any tangents whatsoever...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I require no such reconciliation as, for the Nth time, you are asking me to defend a position I neither hold nor have expressed. Anywhere. Ever. What the "primary" reason is has nothing to do with my point. All my point is is to point out that OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

When you state as fact that atheists and theists disbelieve in gods / other gods for identical reasons, the primary reason given by atheists for rejecting the concept of god becomes extremely relevant.

But that aside, you've capped the salient word yourself again as you continue to soften your position.

So to give the full picture you've gone from...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

an atheist and, say, a christian share disbelief in all the OTHER gods, for all the SAME reasons.

to

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

It's ok to admit you might have been a little hasty in your initial statement. The slow backtracking fools no one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no reconciliation of that sort is required in my actual position, so perhaps you should take it up with someone who holds the position you imagine.

I was until you changed your position...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I gave two already. That you do not LIKE them as answers to this question does not mean I have failed to answer the question, nor does it support your fantasy world claim that I ignored your points or questions.

I never said I didn't like them. I challenged them. But you said you have "a list that goes on" and I'm asking you to share that list...

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

You've changed your wording quite significantly there... You've even capped the salient words yourself... You originally made a definitive statement and I quote....So it started out as a sure thing but you weren't quite so sure in your wording here... Or here... And now were really not so sure at all because it's gone from a definitive statement of fact to being "very likely".

It is a common practice on forums to take one single sentence out of the whole wealth of every thing someone has written on a thread or topic and pedantically try to explode that sentence out as a display that the persons point is other than they are themselves telling you it is. Because all too often such people, like yourself, are more interested in telling people what their point is rather than listening to those people explain what their point is.

Those who are not prone to quote minding and cherry picking, and read everything I have written in the entire thread, in total, and in context, will see I have SEVERAL times explained my actual position in MANY different ways, and the position is clear.

Once again: The purpose of the quote to my mind is to establish common ground between a theist and the atheist speaking by pointing out overlaps, parallels and similarities between them in their reasons for rejecting belief in other gods, other religions and other claims.

Now you can either respond to that position.......... or continue your linguistically pedantic cherry picking campaign of trying to convince (no one but yourself) that I am making a point other than the one I am actually making.... and that back tracking exists where none actually exists..... and I have no control over that decision.... but make NO mistake about who's credibility is eroded by the latter choice. Clue: It won't be mine.

Swanner wrote: »

Do you really ? Without any evidence to support the claim ? So you wouldn't challenge them on the lack of evidence ? Instead you would accept that they have had a personal revelation and have communicated directly with their god ? That's an odd perspective for an atheist and appears a little contradictory but your views are your views and I'm sure you've reconciled them for yourself.

Except none of those are my perspectives and the list of positions you have invented out of your own fantasy and assigned to me is merely getting longer. Where DO you get this quantity of straw I wonder.

All I said was that I accept that TO THEM this is their reasoning and basis for their belief. Nothing about me saying that suggests I accept that reasoning, would not question that reasoning, or that they actually did have a communication with a god. I ONLY said I would accept THEY think they did and that it is the basis for the position they hold.

Swanner wrote: »

Unless it supports your position... For example, the fact that he's atheist is relevant to you...

So now not only have you invested yourself in telling me what my position is on issues when I am telling you differently, but you can also declare what is relevant to me? Nice.

However as usual when you invent things for me that I did not express myself, you are simply wrong again. When I quote people, or am interested in a quote from people, I do so because of the content and meaning of the quote. Who they are, what else they have done or said, is irrelevant to me. Entirely. I would be saying ALL The same things I am now if the author of the quote turned out to be a devout Muslim or Roman Catholic.

So no, his atheism is not at all relevant to me. Even a little. So keep your fantasies and straw to yourself thanks and pocket this need you have to tell me what I feel or think when I am telling you otherwise.

Swanner wrote: »

But i didn't ignore the quote.

Then I hope you will find yourself ABUNDANTLY pleased to go back and find I never once said you did. How nice for everyone.

Swanner wrote: »

But that aside, you've capped the salient word yourself again as you continue to soften your position. So to give the full picture you've gone from... to It's ok to admit you might have been a little hasty in your initial statement. The slow backtracking fools no one. I was until you changed your position...

I have done no such thing. Anywhere. But it is quite common for a party X to suddenly start understanding the position of party Y, but in a leap of cognitive dissonance where they refuse to believe they ever misunderstood party Y.... they will convince themselves that the position or point being made by party Y must somehow have changed along the way.

But the steady and consistent distortions and straw packing from you fools no one.

Swanner wrote: »

I never said I didn't like them. I challenged them.

Dismissal is not challenge or rebuttal. The examples I give stand untouched and serve perfectly well to illustrate the point I have made.

The Bishop Basher

Swanner wrote: »

Keep backtracking at this rate and you'll be agreeing with me in no time

We're almost there.. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again: The purpose of the quote to my mind is to establish common ground between a theist and the atheist speaking by pointing out potential overlaps, parallels and similarities between them in their reasons for rejecting belief in other gods, other religions and other claims.

Add in the word potential and i'd say we have agreement. And my position never changed so take from that what you will

I'll leave you with the last word should you want it..

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

I'll leave you with the last word should you want it..

Well ignoring the majority of my entire post will not leave much in the way of last words to offer you. Though it does give yet one more opportunity for me to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of a user responding to you goes UP in direct proportion to the numbers of times he has suggested he will not".

Suffice to say that if you want to keep imagining my position has been changing or back tracking then you are welcome to do so, but not at the expense of my credibility. Just your own.

As I keep pointing out, the quote does not actually suggest that theists are atheists really, which was the initial issue that was taken with the quote. Which to all but those who insist on a pedantic, context free, reading of the quote is not what the author is saying. The author IS saying that WITH RESPECT TO the gods they both reject (the theist and the atheist speaking to him) there is often overlap, sometimes quite large, between their reasoning for rejecting the claims of others.

I gave two examples of this. The rejection of the personal revelation, or holy texts, in those other religions as being validation or evidence for the claims of those religions.

And the purpose of the quote therefore is two fold.

1) To establish a common ground between the theist and atheist by saying "Look we are not all that different, we share so much here in how and why we reject those other religions. All I am doing is taking much of those same reasons and applying it to YOUR religion too" and

2) To highlight to the theist that they MAY not be applying those same standards to their own religious beliefs. For example if the realize why holy texts and revelation do not support other religions, then by what methodologies are they evaluating their own religion differently?

So while we might take issue with the exact wording of the quote on grounds of merely attempting to be attention catching by doing some minor trolling with labels to engage the listener..... I think when putting pedantic literal-ism aside we can quickly uncover the meaning and intent behind the quote itself.

J C

Three best reasons for Atheism ... I'll have a go !!

The belief that God or Gods doesn't/don't exist
The belief that everything is explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is spontaneous.

Interestingly, these are the mirror image of the three best reasons for Theism:-
The belief that God or Gods exist
The belief that everything isn't explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is Divine.

J C

endacl wrote: »

1. I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
2. You respect mine, to not believe.
3. I won't impose my belief on you. You don't impose yours on me.

And they all lived happily ever after.

There is an internal contradiction between point 2 (which states that Atheists do not believe) and 3 (which states that Atheists have a belief - that they will not impose on other people).

IMO 3 is correct and 2 is incorrect ... i.e. Atheists have a belief that God/gods don't exist.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Three best reasons for Atheism ... I'll have a go !!

The belief that God or Gods doesn't/don't exist
The belief that everything is explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is spontaneous.

Interestingly, these are the mirror image of the three best reasons for Theism:-
The belief that God or Gods exist
The belief that everything isn't explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is Divine.

J C wrote: »

There is an internal contradiction between point 2 (which states that Atheists do not believe) and 3 (which states that Atheists have a belief - that they will not impose on other people).

IMO 3 is correct and 2 is incorrect ... i.e. Atheists have a belief that God/gods don't exist.

Well there you are, you are entitled to believe anything you want, but just because you believe it does not make it true (does that ring any bells?). And it is certainly not true that because you think atheists 'have a belief that god does not exist' this is actually atheists' position.

Endacl made a slight error of phraseology which contradicted a previous statement, though the intention was clear.

As you know perfectly well, atheists do not 'believe there is no god', they have no belief in any god, which is an entirely different thing and has been argued so many times that you cannot be unaware of it.

Further, and again this is a well rehearsed argument, while atheists would expect that everything can be explained by natural rather than supernatural causes, it doesn't mean that everything has been explained. There are things we admit we do not know, but we do not patch the gaps with supernatural sticky tape.

eviltwin

1. I don't believe in any gods

2. I don't care about faith or the afterlife

3. Religion is a force of oppression. I grew up in a religious home and since turning my back on it all the sense of freedom is fantastic.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Well there you are, you are entitled to believe anything you want, but just because you believe it does not make it true (does that ring any bells?). And it is certainly not true that because you think atheists 'have a belief that god does not exist' this is actually atheists' position.

It's not just me ... Atheists themselves don't believe that God/gods exist.
For example, Endacl doesn't believe in imposing his beliefs on others ... presumably, he is speaking about the specific beliefs he holds as an Atheist.

looksee wrote: »

Endacl made a slight error of phraseology which contradicted a previous statement, though the intention was clear.

... he did much more than that ... he 'let the cat out of the bag' ... and openly procaimed that, as an Atheist, he has beliefs ... that he will not impose on others.

looksee wrote: »

As you know perfectly well, atheists do not 'believe there is no god', they have no belief in any god, which is an entirely different thing and has been argued so many times that you cannot be unaware of it.

Having no belief in any god ... presumes that gods exist ... but the person doesn't believe in any of them
... something like somebody having no belief in any politician.:)
Having no belief in any god would be a belief of some kind of Theist ... possibly even an anti-theist!!!

looksee wrote: »

Further, and again this is a well rehearsed argument, while atheists would expect that everything can be explained by natural rather than supernatural causes, it doesn't mean that everything has been explained. There are things we admit we do not know, but we do not patch the gaps with supernatural sticky tape.

It may be well rehearsed ... but the fundamental belief / position of an Atheist is that everything has a materialistic cause (known or unknown) ... otherwise they would be some kind of agnostic, at some level.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

1. I don't believe in any gods

... but God believes in you ... I guess His love for you is unrequited.

eviltwin wrote: »

2. I don't care about faith or the afterlife.

... not caring about faith or the afterlife doesn't make either invalid or non-existent.

eviltwin wrote: »

3. Religion is a force of oppression. I grew up in a religious home and since turning my back on it all the sense of freedom is fantastic.

Me too!!!
Like all Human social constructs, religion can be oppressive ... especially when not balanced by respect for alternative/dissenting beliefs.
Oppression is not unique to religions ... secular atheism has also engaged in oppression as well ... Stalinst Russia and currently, North Korean Communism are good examples of non-religious oppression of dissent.

robindch

J C wrote: »

[...] secular atheism has also engaged in oppression as well ... Stalinst Russia and currently, North Korean Communism are good examples of non-religious oppression of dissent.

Stalin's Russia and North Korea are excellent examples of totalitarian states - exactly the same kind of ideological purity, totalitarianism and simplistic hero-worship demanded by fundamentalist christianity, fundamentalist islam and the rest.

"Secular" means "not involved with religion" so "secular atheism" is a contradiction in terms.

I'm only pointing this out for the 9,000 time because we haven't see you around these parts for a while and some recent posters may be unfamiliar with your merry disregard for biological and historical facts as well as basic political and religious terminology :rolleyes:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Stalin's Russia and North Korea are excellent examples of totalitarian states - exactly the same kind of ideological purity, totalitarianism and simplistic hero-worship demanded by fundamentalist christianity, fundamentalist islam and the rest.

"Secular" means "not involved with religion" so "secular atheism" is a contradiction in terms.

I'm only pointing this out for the 9,000 time because we haven't see you around these parts for a while and some recent posters may be unfamiliar with your merry disregard for biological and historical facts as well as basic political and religious terminology :rolleyes:

My point is that all social constructs ... religious or secular or atheist can have both vices and virtues ... vices are not the monopoly of one and virtue the other.

robindch wrote: »

"Secular" means "not involved with religion" so "secular atheism" is a contradiction in terms.

Yes, the benign form of Secularism is as you describe ... but one finds anti-religious sentiments, right up to active hostility and the suppression of religion in secularism's more extreme manifestations.
Like I have said, it's Human Nature to view one's own beliefs to be correct and everybody else to be wrong ... otherwise, why would a person continue to hold their particular views.
In some cases, this can lead to the vices of intolerance and hatred for those with whom people disagree.
When you stand back and look at it, all that has happened in Ireland over the past 50 years is that one suite of (religious) 'politically correct' views have been replaced with another set of (secular) 'politically correct' views.
The only difference is between how these politically correct views are enforced ... in the 1950's it was by social pressure from people and clergy ... and now, they are enforced by an activist media policy often to the point of propaganda ... backed up with the full force of law, in some cases.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Stalin's Russia and North Korea are excellent examples of totalitarian states - exactly the same kind of ideological purity, totalitarianism and simplistic hero-worship demanded by fundamentalist christianity, fundamentalist islam and the rest.

... that's my point ... that neither Atheism nor Secularism nor Theism have monopolies on either vice or virtue.

robindch wrote: »

I'm only pointing this out for the 9,000 time because we haven't see you around these parts for a while and some recent posters may be unfamiliar with your merry disregard for biological and historical facts as well as basic political and religious terminology :rolleyes:

We are debating the biological and historical facts elsewhere ... and I am questioning the basic political and religious assumptions used on this thread.

recedite

J C wrote: »

I
For example, Endacl doesn't believe in imposing his beliefs on others ... presumably, he is speaking about the specific beliefs he holds as an Atheist.

We all have beliefs. I might believe that x is the best football team, or y plays the best music. I don't try to impose my beliefs on others.

J C

recedite wrote: »

We all have beliefs. I might believe that x is the best football team, or y plays the best music. I don't try to impose my beliefs on others.

No disagreement with you on any of this.

All socially calibrated people don't try to impose their beliefs on others ... and such attempts, by the socially inept, usually backfire anyway.

However, I'll bet that you sometimes discuss who the best football team are or who you think plays the best music ... and why, with your friends in work or in the pub.

During such discussions, I'm sure that you learn about the strengths and weaknesses of your beliefs ... and those of your friends ... with, hopefully, respect from all sides to all sides.

looksee

J C wrote: »

It's not just me ... Atheists themselves don't believe that God/gods exist.
For example, Endacl doesn't believe in imposing his beliefs on others ... presumably, he is speaking about the specific beliefs he holds as an Atheist.


... he did much more than that ... he 'let the cat out of the bag' ... and openly procaimed that, as an Atheist, he has beliefs ... that he will not impose on others.

Having no belief in any god ... presumes that gods exist ... but the person doesn't believe in any of them
... something like somebody having no belief in any politician.:)
Having no belief in any god would be a belief of some kind of Theist ... possibly even an anti-theist!!!

It may be well rehearsed ... but the fundamental belief / position of an Atheist is that everything has a materialistic cause (known or unknown) ... otherwise they would be some kind of agnostic, at some level.

You are well aware of the arguments, and would make them yourself if the discussion were reversed. This kind of weasel wording and re-hashing of meanings (whether correct or incorrect) just adds a layer of pedantry and tedium to an otherwise reasonable discussion.

J C

looksee wrote: »

You are well aware of the arguments, and would make them yourself if the discussion were reversed. This kind of weasel wording and re-hashing of meanings (whether correct or incorrect) just adds a layer of pedantry and tedium to an otherwise reasonable discussion.

Where is the weasel wording in the obvious statement that by definition Atheists don't believe that God or gods exist ... the very word 'Atheist' is made up from the combination of 'A' and 'theist' i.e. the opposite of theist ... i.e. somebody who doesn't believe that God/gods exist ... i.e. the opposite of Theists, who believe that God/gods exist.

If there is a level of pedantry, it is the argument from some Atheists that they do not 'believe there is no god', but rather, they have no belief in any god.

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

If there is a level of pedantry, it is the argument from some Atheists that they do not 'believe there is no god', but rather, they have no belief in any god.

Wow, you really seem to struggle with what an atheist is,

You just love trying to claim an atheist is like a person that follows a religion, its as silly as claiming that somebody that doesn't have an interest in any sport is actually a sports fan
:rolleyes:

robindch

J C wrote: »

If there is a level of pedantry, it is the argument from some Atheists that they do not 'believe there is no god', but rather, they have no belief in any god.

On our side of the street, we believe that words can have meanings that we can agree on and ideas have contexts, meanings and implications that we can defend, reject or ignore and that each must be clear and consensual for the other to make sense. That's what we believe language is for.

On the religious side, language is whatever people want it to mean and that's usually whatever best supports their preconceived notions, or supports what they think their preconceived notions are. Perhaps that's why you believe that the sight of people saying clearly what they mean is "pedantry" rather than what we might hope that it is - honesty and integrity.

Lewis Carroll wrote:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

Shrap

J C wrote: »

Having no belief in any god ... presumes that gods exist ... but the person doesn't believe in any of them
... something like somebody having no belief in any politician.:)
Having no belief in any god would be a belief of some kind of Theist ... possibly even an anti-theist!!!

Oh boy, you're back, and with the same scratch in the same record. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

Basic definition of atheist: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

What part of this presumes that gods exist? Answer: No part. None at all. Ever. Never presume anything. Wait for the evidence. Or just carry on in the knowledge that there isn't any evidence to date, and there is likely to be none forthcoming in the future.

orubiru

the_pen_turner wrote: »

hi there

im atheist and not afraid to say it.

my problem is that people don't believe me or think im open to being lectured on their religion

I try not to argue and try to calmly say these are my beliefs and I don't knock your beliefs

they always end up looking for reasons why I believe what I believe or don't in this case

im sick of it now.
if you had to have 3 points only
what clear points would you make

You only have to ask "where is the evidence?"

If the evidence is not convincing then you only need to say "I'm not convinced".

My 3 points would be...

There's no evidence.
There's no proof.
I'm not going to just believe something based on "faith".

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Having no belief in any god ... presumes that gods exist ... but the person doesn't believe in any of them

Having no belief in any Greek gods/unicorns/elves/pixies/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles etc.... presumes that Greek gods/unicorns/elves/pixies/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles etc. exist ... but the person doesn't believe in any of them

Bristolscale7

Reads like someone has read the wikipedia entry for the ontological argument.

syklops

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

^if you repeat that 3 times in front of a mirror does he disappear?

Does who disappear? That guy who didn't exist already anyway?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

As I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

Disgruntled Badger

Did you ever stop to think that rather than atheists and people of faith, there are actually just people who try to impose their views on you...and people who don't. :-o