Atheism = just another belief system? (priest, science, Einstein, percentage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Story: The reason for religion existing.
Example of making an effort to hold the story: when the god of the religion works in mysterious ways.
the point i made is that atheists here on CD (as shown in many many posts including #141) tell "a story" about religion, and they "make an effort to hold that story"
Rejecting unverifiable claims without testable proof is weak?
Rejecting claims about ultimate ontological reality without testable scientific proof is not merely weak - it's a category mistake. "I insist upon proof of metaphysical claims by methodology suited only to the investigation of the natural order." Doesn't work - see? You are certainly welcome to live your life in this epistemological straitjacket, but most people choose not to.
"I insist that my understanding of ultimate metaphysical reality at least be consistent with my informed understanding of the best scientific evidence and speculation." Ah, that's different. That's Irkle.
Quote:
Trying to define other people's positions for them so you can better argue with them is weak, rather than letting people define their own positions then decide if you have a matter to discuss or debate?
Irkle doesn't care what you believe. Irkle has never spent a moment worrying about the substance of any atheist's beliefs. Irkle has never debated the substance or merits of atheism on these forums.
Irkle - and Mystic - have simply pointed out on these forums that atheists use these watered-down definitions of atheism to give the appearance that they occupy some higher and more reasonable intellectual ground, they make no affirmative claims, they have no convictions to defend, and theists bear some mysterious "burden of proof" because only they make affirmative claims. Some go so far as to insist such claims must be proved by "testable scientific proof" even though this is an obvious category mistake.
Really, I don't care if you insist you're an atheist because God told you atheism is true. The foundation of your non-belief doesn't mean squat to me. I just have analytical difficulty separating "Oh, I simply have no belief a deity exists" from "I have enough conviction no deity exists to characterize myself as an atheist."
Seems like everyone chooses a definition of atheism depending on what best suits their own argument.
At least the version(s) you put forward in the link says as much:
"It is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy".
So it's an argument you can never win with someone that wants to take a different stance.
At the end if the day as I said earlier in the thread, it's not worth arguing over. We all know what atheism means.
There have been more threads on what the definition of atheism is than I've had hot dinners. Trust me, I've even argued for dozens of pages with fellow atheists about what an atheist is, and it is never completely resolved, which is why I can no longer be bothered to argue about it.
My preference is to go with the literal definition, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
Also I disagree that the American Atheists society folks are trying to put a 'happy face' on anything. Personally, I'm left with the opposite impression. They strike me as a miserable bunch.
American Atheists is vocal, but it is a relatively small organization. Pew says 4% of Americans are atheists, or ~15,000,000 people. Wikipedia says American Atheists has 3500 members. American Atheists says they have 392,000 "members and supporters" in 230 local affiliates.
I don't think they represent the 14,000,000+ that have nothing to do with them.
Seems like everyone chooses a definition of atheism depending on what best suits their own argument. At least the version(s) you put forward in the link says as much:
"It is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy".
So it's an argument you can never win with someone that wants to take a different stance.
At the end if the day as I said earlier in the thread, it's not worth arguing over. We all know what atheism means. There have been more threads on what the definition of atheism is than I've had hot dinners. Trust me, I've even argued for dozens of pages with fellow atheists about what an atheist is, and it is never completely resolved, which is why I can no longer be bothered to argue about it.
My preference is to go with the literal definition, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
Also I disagree that the American Atheists society folks are trying to put a 'happy face' on anything. Personally, I'm left with the opposite impression. They strike me as a miserable bunch.
this is an excellent post.
i could not agree more.
Rejecting claims about ultimate ontological reality without testable scientific proof is not merely weak - it's a category mistake. "I insist upon proof of metaphysical claims by methodology suited only to the investigation of the natural order." Doesn't work - see? You are certainly welcome to live your life in this epistemological straitjacket, but most people choose not to.
"I insist that my understanding of ultimate metaphysical reality at least be consistent with my informed understanding of the best scientific evidence and speculation." Ah, that's different. That's Irkle.
Irkle doesn't care what you believe. Irkle has never spent a moment worrying about the substance of any atheist's beliefs. Irkle has never debated the substance or merits of atheism on these forums.
Irkle - and Mystic - have simply pointed out on these forums that atheists use these watered-down definitions of atheism to give the appearance that they occupy some higher and more reasonable intellectual ground, they make no affirmative claims, they have no convictions to defend, and theists bear some mysterious "burden of proof" because only they make affirmative claims. Some go so far as to insist such claims must be proved by "testable scientific proof" even though this is an obvious category mistake.
It's not to give that appearance at all.
These sweeping generalizations are not helpful.
You are reading far too much into it.
The reason I personally prefer a literal definition ie an absence of belief is because it's the simplest, most basic definition and it carries no baggage with it.
As I keep repeatedly pointing out, we are all individuals with individual ideals, politics, points of view.
And beyond a lack of belief in god nobody can make ANY other assumptions about that person beyond that.
Otherwise it's the equivalent of saying that everyone who is a theist must be a bible literalist. No. There are about 6 billion theists on the planet. No one theist believes exactly the same as the next.
But they're all theists. We know what a theist is. It's someone that believes a god exists. It's a simple definition that everyone understands.
Atheism is an absence of belief. Simple.
Quote:
Really, I don't care if you insist you're an atheist because God told you atheism is true. The foundation of your non-belief doesn't mean squat to me. I just have analytical difficulty separating "Oh, I simply have no belief a deity exists" from "I have enough conviction no deity exists to characterize myself as an atheist."
This is a negligible separation or difference in stance so I don't know what you are having problems with.
We don't believe in god. That's all there is to it. It's not complicated.
Seems like everyone chooses a definition of atheism depending on what best suits their own argument. At least the version(s) you put forward in the link says as much:
"It is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy".
So it's an argument you can never win with someone that wants to take a different stance.
At the end if the day as I said earlier in the thread, it's not worth arguing over. We all know what atheism means. There have been more threads on what the definition of atheism is than I've had hot dinners. Trust me, I've even argued for dozens of pages with fellow atheists about what an atheist is, and it is never completely resolved, which is why I can no longer be bothered to argue about it.
My preference is to go with the literal definition, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
Also I disagree that the American Atheists society folks are trying to put a 'happy face' on anything. Personally, I'm left with the opposite impression. They strike me as a miserable bunch.
what the post above clearly and accurately points out
is that atheists argue and disagree about atheism, and do not even agree about what is atheism. atheists hold different beliefs about atheism.
atheists do not agree on what atheism is. atheists do not agree on what an atheist is.
=a collection of different beliefs about atheism (what is an atheist? atheists are not in agreement; what is atheism? atheists are not in agreement).
a collection of different beliefs about atheism = a belief system about atheism.
these different beliefs atheists hold (about what is an atheist, about what is atheism)
and the ensuing discussion, arguments, disagreements atheists have amongst themselves and with other other atheists,
are no different than the discussions, arguments, disagreements people have about what does this or that path of religion and spirituality include.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-06-2021 at 08:30 AM..
Irkle - and Mystic - have simply pointed out on these forums that atheists use these watered-down definitions of atheism to give the appearance that they occupy some higher and more reasonable intellectual ground, they make no affirmative claims, they have no convictions to defend, and theists bear some mysterious "burden of proof" because only they make affirmative claims.
Yes, we know the assertions, and I have explained why the assertions are false. Many atheists simply do not believe extraordinary claims because they have already met the burden of proof, whether they know this or not. That is why those atheists who can argue for atheism, because they understand what that evidence is.
The theists have not, that is why they have the burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Some go so far as to insist such claims must be proved by "testable scientific proof" even though this is an obvious category mistake.
No, it does not need to be scientific proof, it needs to be credible, verifiable evidence.
the point i made is that atheists here on CD (as shown in many many posts including #141) tell "a story" about religion, and they "make an effort to hold that story"
Give us an actual example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
