Atheism

@ehBeth,

Respectfully as possible, Beth, it would be even nicer if atheists came to the realization that in an Internet forum like A2K...anyone who has comments to make on any subject should not be subject to censorship by people who have no right to censor.

It was evident in the first few pages of this thread that the idea of exclusion was never going to work...and when convenient for atheists, the exclusion was ignored.

I've attempted to play along with you atheists on several occasions where I wanted to respond, but it is obvious that some people are going to have skirmishes...while pretending not to allow them.

From this point on, I will post in whatever threads I choose to post in. Put me on IGNORE if you object.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

From this point on, I will post in whatever threads I choose to post in. Put me on IGNORE if you object. [/b]

That's quite okay Frank. At least you're not an agnostic.

1 Reply

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Blank+_7770e8c1994f5cd058f2cdf1061f355f.jpg

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Oh, I am an agnostic. I just am not using the word as a descriptor any more than necessary...and then, only with the explanation I gave for what I mean for my agnosticism. (Which I just gave a few posts ago.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That actually did not address the concern I had, Agrome, but let's leave that if you prefer.

If I did not address your point it was not intentional. If you want me to address it I will. what point do want addressed?

Quote:

However, since there is so little agreement on what words like atheist and agnostic mean as a label, wouldn't it be better if we all define what we are labeling ourselves by actually stating it in "long hand" (as I did for my agnosticism)...and then use that as an explanation for what we consider the descriptor when we use the "short hand" form?

That might work for many but it works against my short term memory. I would always have to go back and check who I was talking to.

I'm being serious

By the way, many people done that here already.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

be a place where self-defined atheists could have conversations about their experiences as atheists

Just curious, Beth: where does he say anything about "self-defined atheists?" Where does he say he wants to limit it to the ONE big issue he has?

The thread is simply entitled "atheism" and says "I'd like this thread to be open for constructive conversation, sharing of ideas..."

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

No, but you were talking about what is known (or claimed to be known), gnosticism vs. agnosticism[/quote

But it is still separate from truth. Knowledge in and of itself is not necessarily truth. Any good scientific method has built in mechanism to test what is considered knowledge. Isn't that epistemology?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

But it is still separate from truth. Knowledge in and of itself is not necessarily truth

I agree 100% But that's not what's at issue here, is it?

Plato included the notion of "truth" in his definition of "knowledge," but that wasn't the point at all. The point was that you can't claim to have "knowledge" while simultaneously denying that you believe the thing you claim to know. But even that doesn't really matter. You said some atheists claim to KNOW there is no god. I agree, and took your word for that. Has that changed?

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5913480)
Quote:
That actually did not address the concern I had, Agrome, but let's leave that if you prefer.

If I did not address your point it was not intentional. If you want me to address it I will. what point do want addressed?

Agrome…you had written:

Quote:

The only qualification to be an atheist is to be without belief nothing else.

I responded:

Quote:

This seems to be an arbitrary description of what it means to be an atheist.

Could you flesh out why you assert it as so.

Instead of actually telling me why you suppose the only qualification for being an atheist is to be without belief…and nothing else…

…you simply said I was missing your point.

The point I wanted you to address is: Why are you asserting that the only qualification to be an atheist is to be without belief nothing else.

It seems arbitrary to me.

This may be nothing more than a "all A's are B's, but not all B's are A's" kind of thing, but I want to be sure.

I am "without belief"...but I am not an atheist.

1 Reply

@layman,

Layman...on the same day that LittleK posted this thread...

...she engaged in a discussion with a non-atheist.

The same day!

The notion that non-atheists have no business being here is ill-conceived...and should be discarded once and for all.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

this thread was not created to debate definitions of atheism, but to be a place where self-defined atheists could have conversations about their experiences as atheists - to share information and resources (not that I've ever had any idea what resources these could be)

there are other threads where the definition of atheism has been/can be debated

it would be nice if atheists could have their thread back

I do not understand a post title Atheism without it being quantified to a specific reason. Second, what is so inherently atheistic (is that a word?) that there is anything to share about being an atheist save for that we don't believe?

Our lives can be happy or sad without, to what I refer to as, the baggage of religion.

Other than religion how are our lives different?

I guess for many becoming an atheist may have a high price given ones circumstances. I guess it would be quite traumatic if you were ostracized or lose your livelihood and your love ones.

There are organizations that help people in these situations. I asked in this post if any one every watch the Atheist Experience? they have tons of information on organizations that can help in that manner.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

1. I believe there is a god (theism)
2. I believe there is no god (atheism), and
3. I don't claim to know, and hence I have no belief either way (agnosticism).

Given those definitions, how would you classify yourself, Arg? I realize it's a personal question and you don't have to answer if you'd rather not.

I'll try to answer the best way

I haven't seen any evidence of any of the god(s) posited. So I do not believe that any of them exist. And the rationale given for their existence, void of empirical data, is even less convincing. Nor do I believe wishful thinking make things so. I am a skeptic and for the most part believe that that conscious life can't do anything but go insane. I think people are mostly insane...all the crap we do to one another and to ourselves?

I am a very strong atheist and anti theist. I am not militant. I do want to see religion gone via violence. I want it gone via reason and sane rationality.

I answered it this way because
1) I am not a theist. I never have been.
2) is self evident by the negation of no.1, using my definition either god(s) exist or god(s) don't. A can't be true and false.

3)Though i am 99% sure that there is no god(s) it would be foolish of me to say so absolutely as much and as it is silly to say there is no flying spaghetti monster.
I just equate them the same.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Agrome…you had written:
Quote:
The only qualification to be an atheist is to be without belief nothing else.

I responded:
Quote:
This seems to be an arbitrary description of what it means to be an atheist.

Could you flesh out why you assert it as so.

Instead of actually telling me why you suppose the only qualification for being an atheist is to be without belief…and nothing else…

…you simply said I was missing your point.

The point I wanted you to address is: Why are you asserting that the only qualification to be an atheist is to be without belief nothing else.

It seems arbitrary to me.

This may be nothing more than a "all A's are B's, but not all B's are A's" kind of thing, but I want to be sure.

I am "without belief"...but I am not an atheist.

You're correct, I should have been clearer,

Given my understanding of atheism, I guess today's usage, If one doesn't believe in or possess a belief in a god(s) that is all that is required because atheism in and of it self has no dogma or tenets nor does it say anything else about that person.

1 Reply

@argome321,

I agree with you, Argome.

Just wanted to be sure you were not of the opinion that "not having a belief in a god" makes one an atheist.

All atheists have no beliefs in a god...but not all people who have no beliefs in a god are atheists.

I have no belief in any gods...and I am not an atheist.

Most of the atheists here are fine with that distinction...but I've posted in some of the atheist forums...and as far as many of them are concerned, anyone without a belief in a god (including an infant or a toddler)...is an atheist.

Some atheists can take the (no belief in a god) notion to an extreme, which was the reason for my request for clarification.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Most of the atheists here are fine with that distinction...but I've posted in some of the atheist forums...and as far as many of them are concerned, anyone without a belief in a god (including an infant or a toddler)...is an atheist.

Here's some irony. As a strong atheist I had an argument with another atheist on this very topic. To claim babies as atheist or anything is a far stretch and rather silly. I think you can't consider them of any religion or non-religious preference simply since they are too young and uninformed, too young to be conscious of and unable to comprehend, as to what religion is. I think you have to have some understanding before you can decide to be anything. Or at least old enough and expose to it.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

I am a very strong atheist and anti theist....I want it [religion] gone...

I take that to be saying you would put yourself in class number 2, then.

You do hedge that somewhat when you say "Though i am 99% sure that there is no god(s) it would be foolish of me to say so absolutely...."

Of course I was asking about "god," not religion, but I take you to be equating the two, like so: To say "I don't believe in "religion" means, and is identical to, saying "I don't believe in god."

But I notice that you yourself now bring in "truth" as some factor, it seems, which is fine.

Quote:

is self evident by the negation of no.1, using my definition either god(s) exist or god(s) don't. A can't be true and false.

So, let's just say you are an atheist as it is defined in #2.

That said, do you think #3 is a null class.? Do you think that, like you, everyone who does not positively believe there is a god, necessarily concludes that there is no god? Can someone legitimately profess to not have a belief one way or the other? Or are they just kidding themselves, ya think?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I take that to be saying you would put yourself in class number 3, then.

If you mean that I am an agnostic atheist by my definition, yes. But very much in the same light that I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster or tooth fairy etc

Quote:

you do hedge that somewhat when you say "Though i am 99% sure that there is no god(s) it would be foolish of me to say so absolutely...."

Hedging? I'm a believer in the mathematical law of probability. I believe that we allow for a margin of error because since our knowledge is not absolute we try to account for the x factors... The things that we do not know.

But to say god is the unknown is not an answer, it is explaining one mystery with another. It is one of those cases where to say we don't know is more honest in my humble opinion. I think atheist refer to that as God of the Gaps.

I can ride the train everyday to work, I can know the science behind it. I may have arrived at work everytime I rode the train without incident. I don't think about not arriving to work, it is not how we live. But we know that there is a possible chance that we do not arrive at our destination. There may be unknown factors involved, something different something added. It all comes down to probabilities and the actual percentage of them being true.

Quote:

Of course I was asking about "god," not religion, but I take you to be equating the two, like so "To say "I don't believe in "religion" means, and is identical to, saying "I don't believe in god."

I did reference to god(s) my atheism extends beyond the major beliefs. Plus I don't believe in the supernatural.

But I notice that you yourself now bring in "truth" as some factor, it seems, which is fine.

here I was talking specifically about myself and not in general terms and trying to develop a dialogue.

Quote:

Quote:
is self evident by the negation of no.1, using my definition either god(s) exist or god(s) don't. A can't be true and false.
So, let's just say you are an atheist as it is defined in #3.

If we are defining Agnostic Atheist in my understanding and what I believe to be, yes.

Quote:

That said, do you think #2 is a null class.? Do you think that, like you, everyone who does not positively believe there is a god, necessarily concludes that there is no god? Can some legitimately profess to not have a belief one way or the other? Or are they just kidding themselves, ya think?

If your asking me to explain other who call themselves atheist that would be impossible.
If person concludes that there is not a god(s), if that is a positive assertion, a statement of absolute, that person would be by definition as I understand today's usage, a Gnostic Atheist.

They say that incredible claims require incredible evidence...
In our courts you know how they mention the term A pro ponderous of evidence...
...and as to repeat myself, I have not seen any empirical data to prove the existence of these posited god(s) . Nor have the reason given seem solid enough to believe them. Quite often the opposite has been true. So what are the odds, the chances that these god(s) exist? the probability seems minimal. Thus I feel quite sure that they don't exist and do not allow them to influence my life by conceding to things I do not believe. Why would I?

The reason how I got into this discussion is because I was informing you that there are several atheist organizations who have my view as far as defining themselves as Atheist under the modern use..group such as The American Atheist, NYC Atheist and The Atheist experience, These are a few.

So to say null? mmm... I don't thinks so because some of these groups are large Atheist group who have social networking here and internationally.
American Atheist now has a 24 hour tv programming. There is Youtube. The Atheist Experience based in Austin Texas has been on Public access tv for 10 years and growing.

3 Replies

mark

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Re: layman (Post 5913549)

Quote: I take that to be saying you would put yourself in class number 3, then. If you mean that I am an agnostic atheist by my definition, yes

Heh, sorry. I got my numbers mixed up. I changed them a long time ago, but I guess you had already started responding. I intended to put you in the atheist class (2 not 3) since you explained your logic. I haven't read your whole answer yet, but I'll have to reinterpret in that light. It may not make sense, now, I'll see.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Well, it is pretty messed up now.

Quote:

If we are defining Agnostic Atheist in my understanding and what I believe to be, yes

Well, "we" weren't using that definition, but you did. So an "agnostic theist" would be one who believes in god, but claims he's "not sure" if there's a god, I take it. So, in your definition, anyone who doesn't claim to "know" is an agnostic of some kind (i.e. either (1) an agnostic atheist, or (2) an agnostic theist)?

Now is it possible for a person to have NO beliefs about god? Someone who does NOT believe there is no god, but also does NOT believe there is a god? if that is possible, what would that be? An agnostic agnostic, maybe?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know