Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Askot Bokbondeler]

@farmerbob
what's your stance on xenu?

[Farmerbob]

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.

You don't understand what "atheism" means and haven't been following the conversation.

"Atheism" does not imply the belief that a deity does not exist. It implies the lack of belief in a deity. Yes, there are atheists who strictly believe that there is no God, or no gods, but that does not account for all of them and the label does not imply that.


Also: It is still certainly rational to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the validity or consistency of their proposed characteristics.


Also: What MetalSlimeHunt said. Burden of proof isn't on someone denying the claim. If someone makes a claim with absolutely no evidence behind it, the rational thing is to deny its truth. This is not the same as saying "I know for sure that it isn't true and can prove it".

And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists.  We are NOT.  An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.

[Farmerbob]

What Askot said. Jehova isn't any different when it comes to the burden of proof compared to any one of the other literally infinite and uncountable ideas you could come up with. It doesn't matter that a lot of people already believe in him, and an infinite/uncountable number of hypothetical beings or entities could be thought up which also don't interact with the world much.

And without any meaningful following they are background noise and either simply do not exist, or have no impact on the world, either in a direct or indirect manner, and aren't worth discussing.

Atheism is a rejection of Theism.  Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.

Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.

If you want to discuss the relevance of Atheism, discuss it in a relevant way - in the context of real religions.

[G-Flex]

And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists.  We are NOT.  An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.

Holy shit, you literally don't read, do you? I already responded to that claim.

Some atheists are agnostic, but not all. Some agnostics are also atheists.

I'm going to put this in big letters so that you don't miss it this time: Atheism does not imply that you believe there are no gods. Some have this belief, and others do not. Atheism only implies that you have no belief in a god or gods. A popular distinction here is between "weak atheism" (which has overlap with agnosticism) and "strong atheism" (which does not).

Atheism is a rejection of Theism.  Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.

Without theism, everyone would be atheist, as atheist is defined as a lack of theism.

Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.

That isn't what I was doing.

[Farmerbob]

@farmerbob
what's your stance on xenu?

Have never cared enough to even look at the theology of $cientology.  I know a couple reformed $cientologists who have broken their brainwashing and actively oppose that group.

My understanding is that they don't believe in a deity per se, but rather some sort of alien race.  I don't disbelieve or disbelieve in it because I don't know enough, but I'll have nothing to do with them because of how the organization treats people in general.

[G-Flex]

FWIW, there are probably some terms here that people should look into before making too many assumptions about "atheism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

[fqllve]

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.

You are misunderstanding the idea of claim. It isn't atheists claiming that no deities exist, it's theists claiming that deities exist and atheists responding that there is absolutely no reason to believe this, and no, it isn't true. Atheists didn't step onto the stage first and declare the nonexistence of deities before the concept of deity was invented. Denying a positive statement isn't the same as making a positive statement of your own.

And that denial does not need proof because it is not the positive claim. The burden of proof is on the person who forwarded the concept of deity as valid, if no proof is provided the default position is one of non-existence.

[Shambling Zombie]

Indeed, if you had to prove a denial, in court those who plead Not Guilty would have the burden of proof on them, which they don't. If something has been proven, -then- the denial must have stronger evidence to back it up.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist. Why? Because theists have made a claim, many times, and always failed to deliver evidence supporting their claim. This has happened so very much, in the entire spectrum of deities proported to exist, that I find the chance of any of them existing when the claims of their existance have uniformly failed to be unlikely in the extreme.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.

Your problem is that the default postion of any individual is implicit atheism (not ever knowing of the idea of deities, as opposed to explicit atheism, which would be like me.). They can grow, live, and die without any contact with these ideas, and as such it is the default position. To sway someone from the default postion in a rational manner, you need evidence. When a theist confronts an implict atheist with their ideas, one of two things can happen:
A. The implicit atheist can believe them despite the lack of evidence, and has now made a consious choice on the subject, becoming a theist.
B. The implicit atheist can reject their claim, and now has made a consious choice on the subject, becoming an explict atheist.

Atheism is a rejection of Theism.  Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.

Everyone would be an implicit atheist, which is indeed a irreligious position.

Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.

Sure it is. I was drawing a parallel to show you the meaninglessness of the "It has followers, and is therefore more important to the subject." claim.

If you want to discuss the relevance of Atheism, discuss it in a relevant way - in the context of real religions.

Done.

I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet the Abrahamic god is going to send me to Hell for disbelieving in it. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats god, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's god's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats hateful, self-rightious god that could be skittering around you judging your soul at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin? unspeakable ethreal god?

[Farmerbob]

And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists.  We are NOT.  An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.

Holy shit, you literally don't read, do you? I already responded to that claim.

Some atheists are agnostic, but not all. Some agnostics are also atheists.

I'm going to put this in big letters so that you don't miss it this time: Atheism does not imply that you believe there are no gods. Some have this belief, and others do not. Atheism only implies that you have no belief in a god or gods. A popular distinction here is between "weak atheism" (which has overlap with agnosticism) and "strong atheism" (which does not).

Atheism is a rejection of Theism.  Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.

Without theism, everyone would be atheist, as atheist is defined as a lack of theism.

Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.

That isn't what I was doing.

And we get back into definitions of words.

Atheism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Agnostics.  I am an Agnostic.  I am not Atheist.

I'll be simpler.  Agnosticism is Agnosticism, not "Weak Atheism"  Wiki is usually pretty good on history and the hard science, but anything close to religion, and it gets stupid at times.

[Farmerbob]

An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist.

<snip>

You don't even know what you are.  If you do not believe there is a deity, you could be irreligious or Agnostic.  If you know there is no deity without bothering with the burden of evidence, that would make you Atheist.

In this case, use a real dictionary, not Wiki.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wiki is usually pretty good on history and the hard science, but anything close to religion, and it gets stupid at times.

An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism.  An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.

I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist.

<snip>

You don't even know what you are.  If you do not believe there is a deity, you could be irreligious or Agnostic.  If you know there is no deity without bothering with the burden of evidence, that would make you Atheist.

In this case, use a real dictionary, not Wiki.

If that's the case, then tell me: How do you know Wikipedia is wrong on this subject of definitions, instead of you?

[Bauglir]

BEHOLD! The set of definitions we're going to use now, ideally.

Here. I fucked up the diagram. Sorry, I'll need a few minutes to fix that. So, the reason I've laid it out like that is that it seems to me that Atheism, in the strictest sense, is a group whose members do not believe in deities. An explicit Atheist is a member who believes there is no deity. An implicit Atheist is one who has no belief one way or the other. An agnostic is one who explicitly believes that a valid belief one way or the other is impossible; in a sense, agnosticism is explicit implicit atheism.

Now, with formal definitions out of the way, let's get down to the root of the issue. Agnostics have their own name, and so when referring to them we should probably refer to them as Agnostics, even though we all understand that they fall under the very broad heading of Atheist. Since it isn't actually logically possible, as far as I'm aware, for an implicit atheist to participate in this discussion without being an Agnostic, we don't need to worry about terms for them (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, when we say Atheist, unless we explicitly say otherwise, we're referring to Explicit Atheists, who have no other group name. Is this satisfactory?

EDIT: If not, explain where my error was and explicitly tell me what correction to make. By that I mean, "You don't have to be Atheist to be an Agnostic" isn't good enough, but telling me what the difference between the definition of an Atheist and an Agnostic is is fine. I'm not budging, however, on the definition of an Atheist as somebody with no belief in God; it's deliberately a broad category, and it's important to understand that being a member of it equates your views with, say those of Richard Dawkins, only very slightly more than does being bipedal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have a single problem with that, in that explicit atheism is a lack of a belief in deities despite knowing of those who do have that belief, instead of a belief that no deities exist.

[Shambling Zombie]

Works for me, if just to stop the silly word definition arguements, which are very pointless.