"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 168 by William]



[center]
The kind of atheist Blastcat is[/center]

What types of atheists are you proposing?

I do not propose any types. It is up to the atheist to say what type of atheist they are in relation to which of the subset(s) of atheism they belong to or otherwise self identify with and support.

I'm in the subset of atheists who reject theism.

[William]

[Replying to post 166 by William]



[center]
Atheism is about only ONE kind of non belief... a non belief in gods or goddesses
That's it.

Part Two[/center]

If that were the case, then there would be nothing to argue about.

IF?

What do you think atheism is?
Do you reject my definition?

On the contrary.
If that is all atheism is, then there is nothing to argue about.

But, apparently that is only the Heading Description and so your definition focuses only on the Heading, not the reality of the subsets and accompanying bias based behaviors
Those are more relevent to positions one can thus argue from.

Q: Do you wish to argue them from the platform of atheism?

A: Yes of course! I am an atheist!

Q: So are you saying atheism is different from 'being an atheist' because being an atheist is MORE than what atheism is, which of itself merely is about lacking belief in all ideas of GOD?

A: Yes. (?)

No.

If you aren't a theist, you are an atheist.
It's as simple as that.

And if that were just the case, there would be no arguement. They are merely positions.

Surely you can appreciate that there are types of theists and atheists, and this is where the arguments are sourced?

Then you are no longer arguing from the position of atheism, but from a position of whatever TYPE of atheist you are as a subset of that platform.

There as many "kinds" of atheists as their are definitions for "atheism". Not everyone who labels himself an atheist has the same definition. My definition is rather simple. But feel free to debate atheists who use different definitions.

Okay. If you are saying that you are not any type of atheist but only someone who lacks belief in any ideas of GOD, then sure. You have nothing to argue from that position and I will note that.

Q: Why are you consistently arguing for the non existence of GOD and requiring verifiable evidence for the existence of GODs?

Q: (related to the first question:) What about your lack of beliefs in all ideas of gods compels you to argue against those who differ from you and have beliefs?

I can make arguments why theism isn't believable... but that's it.

Then you are doing so from a position of subset(s) of atheism. You might, for example, be a 'anti-theist' atheist, which is what motivates you to argue.

Atheism is just a rejection of theistic claims.

No. You are now contradicting your claim.

You say:

Atheism is about only ONE kind of non belief... a non belief in gods or goddesses
That's it.

Then you contradicted that by saying;

Atheism is just a rejection of theistic claims.

Rejection is not the same as lacking belief. A baby lacks belief, but is not rejecting anything.



Q: Have you done any serious study into the subsets of atheism?


eta;

If you seriously want anyone to understand you as an atheist, (and atheism in general) you will have to tell them what type of atheist you are.

Think of it in terms of theism.

There are different types of theists and thus it is in ones best interests to at least find out what type of theist they are.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 169 by Blastcat]

If you aren't a theist, you are an atheist.

Note how you tried to debate me on this point, but could not prove it and then gave up, but now still try to do so with William.

And yet you have said before that you do not want to debate people when you discover that they are not interested in the truth.

Are you sure that you are?

For you can not defend this argument you keep posting with anything other than a lot of words which does not end in a logical argument which hold when tested.

If your claim should follow scientific method it should already be evident that the claim can not be true, for you could find no point you could disprove my argument, and could not defend your own.

So why do you continue with it on the same forum while trying to avoid finishing a debate which challenged your point much further and proved it wrong?

I am sure it is not because your highness is a scaredy cat

By the way your argument is also in danger of falling apart with William, for he is right you have contradicted yourself more than once.

You really should read and study what William wrote here, for he debated his argument quite well.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 171 by William]




[center]
Atheism is about only ONE kind of non belief... a non belief in gods or goddesses
That's it.

Part Three: Looking for those other "kinds"[/center]

On the contrary.
If that is all atheism is, then there is nothing to argue about.

Yup.
That's all atheism is.

Pretty simple, right?

But, apparently that is only the Heading Description and so your definition focuses only on the Heading, not the reality of the subsets and accompanying bias based behaviors
Those are more relevent to positions one can thus argue from.

You are most welcome to debate any kind of atheist that you want to.

Surely you can appreciate that there are types of theists and atheists, and this is where the arguments are sourced?

All atheists pretty much don't believe in any gods or goddesses. Anything else we might or might not believe is something separate from atheism itself.

Atheism is JUST ABOUT ONE THING... a non belief in gods or goddesses.
That's it.

Okay. If you are saying that you are not any type of atheist but only someone who lacks belief in any ideas of GOD, then sure. You have nothing to argue from that position and I will note that.

I'm the TYPE of atheist who lacks a belief in any gods or goddesses.
I think that's the most GENERAL type of atheism.

Anything else is added on.
In any case, I'm not one of those other kinds, so I can't help you with that.

Some atheists are perhaps more convinced than others that gods or goddesses don't exist... I'm at 99.9% convinced that there are none.. but I guess that varies, so the amount of non-belief might be different "kinds", I suppose.

If "my kind" isn't interesting to you, fine.
I'm not going to force you to ask questions... But I'll just notice that you aren't, if you don't. I notice a lot of interesting things in here.

Then you are doing so from a position of subset(s) of atheism. You might, for example, be a 'anti-theist' atheist, which is what motivates you to argue.

Well, I'm not an anti-theist.
I'm an atheist, and I described it for you ...

If it's not good enough for you, ask me questions.
I'll try my best to explain as best I can.

And I don't believe in gods or goddesses because I reject the reasons given by theists. I reject them because I don't consider them convincing enough for me to believe them.

If you seriously want anyone to understand you as an atheist, (and atheism in general) you will have to tell them what type of atheist you are.

I'm the kind of atheist who doesn't believe in gods or goddesses.
If you don't like that kind, or don't find anything to debate about, great.

Nobody is asking you to.

Think of it in terms of theism.

There are different types of theists and thus it is in ones best interests to at least find out what type of theist they are.

Well, I'm the kind of atheist who doesn't believe in any kind of gods or goddesses.
Atheism isn't divided into denominations or cults or churches or anything like that.

Atheism is an extremely simple idea.
It's not like religions with all kinds of theological differences.

Sorry if I disappoint you.

[stevevw]

[Replying to post 161 by stevevw]




[center]
Atheism is about only ONE kind of non belief... a non belief in gods or goddesses
That's it.[/center]

If an atheist believes in ghosts then what's the difference with say believing in the Holy spirit which is like the ghost of Christ. Plus it seems then that atheists are being discriminatory against gods. If they believe in one form of supernatural being as opposed to another then the only difference I can see is that it is because it is a god or a divine agent as opposed to any ghost which doesn't have a deity attached to it.

Atheism only means that someone doesn't believe in gods or goddesses. They can believe anything else.

Atheism is about just one thing. belief in gods or goddesses. That's it.
People get so confused, but the concept is extremely simple and modest.

Belief in gods or goddesses = Theism.
No believe in gods or goddesses = Atheism.

That's all this is.


There is no "discrimination" going on against ghosts or whatever...
If you are an atheist, you can go ahead and believe in ghosts all you like... that doesn't affect atheism, but it might indicate that you are superstitious and not a very good skeptic.

If that is the case then what is the purpose of atheism. It cannot be about the supernatural as ghosts and gods are both much the same. It cannot be about skepticism as a skeptic would hold the same view about ghosts and gods being something that cannot be proven. It cannot be about the science as ghosts are just as hard to verify as gods. It cannot be about reality or materialism as ghosts and gods are beyond these realms.

So what is the point of atheism? If it's just to say that they don't believe in gods then that is a pointless exercise as it does not prove anything because it is not based on anything as mentioned above. It would merely be an opinion. Yet atheists will go to great lengths to use science to prove their views are correct. They can't because they also believe in ghosts. If they want to use the science to disprove gods then that same science will disprove their own position of ghosts.

That is why I thought that to take the position of not believing in gods they would also have to be the same with all other supernatural things like ghosts, fairies ect. To me, it seems that there is a personal reason for not believing in gods. They may not want to believe in any gods because if they do then this will mean they will have to follow their teachings as well. So it may be a battle of wills.

[benchwarmer]

If that is the case then what is the purpose of atheism.

Simply to label yourself as not a theist. That's what the 'a' is for in front of the word 'theist'. Plain and simple. As a species, we seem to like to label everything.

So what is the point of atheism? If it's just to say that they don't believe in gods then that is a pointless exercise as it does not prove anything because it is not based on anything as mentioned above.

It proves that when we use that label we have defined ourselves as not theists. It's a way to communicate a concept. A shorthand if you will. Rather than standing there and saying "I don't believe in Allah, I don't believe in Zeus, I don't believe in Vishnu, I don't believe in ........" we simply say "I'm an atheist".

Yet atheists will go to great lengths to use science to prove their views are correct.

Actually most atheists ask theists to use science to support their claims since they are the ones making positive claims. i.e. God exists.

Most atheists don't claim "gods don't exist", they usually just say they have seen no evidence of any and thus don't believe in them. No science required.

If they want to use the science to disprove gods then that same science will disprove their own position of ghosts.

Science is generally not about disproving anything, it's usually a positive assertion. i.e. Something exists or something behaves this way. It's very hard if not impossible to prove a negative. Science is also not about proving, it's about increasing confidence in theories and hypothesis. Anything is falsifiable at any time if it's a proper hypothesis or theory.

[stevevw]

If they want to use the science to disprove gods then that same science will disprove their own position of ghosts.

Science is generally not about disproving anything, it's usually a positive assertion. i.e. Something exists or something behaves this way. It's very hard if not impossible to prove a negative. Science is also not about proving, it's about increasing confidence in theories and hypothesis. Anything is falsifiable at any time if it's a proper hypothesis or theory.

Good points. If atheists ask theists to prove their position with the science then how can some atheists believe in ghosts when they would have to apply the same criteria to their position about ghosts?

Also atheism has several positions.
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

So those atheists who take the position that there are definitely no deities would have to support that position with some sort of evidence. Can an atheist who takes this definite position then believe in ghosts? It seems to be not just about gods but also a position of belief if some can say there are definitely no deities because they would have to verify their position as well.

[William]

[Replying to post 173 by Blastcat]

I have asked you some questions already but you didn't answer them all.

Q: Why invite others to ask you questions and then not answer the questions being asked?

[William]

[Replying to post 168 by William]



[center]
The kind of atheist Blastcat is[/center]

What types of atheists are you proposing?

I do not propose any types. It is up to the atheist to say what type of atheist they are in relation to which of the subset(s) of atheism they belong to or otherwise self identify with and support.

I'm in the subset of atheists who reject theism.

You lack belief in gods and also reject theism.
Well that's a start.

What do you mean when you say you reject theism?


When you say that do you mean all types of theism?

Do you repudiate theism because theism doesn't lack belief in god(s) or are there other reasons?
Do you repudiate everything else which isn't theism but exhibits any other things which you [might] have reason to also reject theism for?
Do you repudiate theism for all that it injects into human society regardless of any good it may be doing?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 174 by stevevw]



[center]
Atheism is about only ONE kind of non belief... a non belief in gods or goddesses
That's it.
Part Two: Skepticism ≠ Atheism [/center]

If that is the case then what is the purpose of atheism.

"Atheism" is a label for a philosophical position.
That's the only "purpose" it has.

It cannot be about the supernatural as ghosts and gods are both much the same.

Oh, well, if you define a ghost and a god the same way, ok.
But most people don't.

But now, you are discussing the meaning of "GOD".
That's another matter entirely.

Atheism admits no gods of any kind.
If God is the same thing as a ghost, that's a god.

Atheists would not believe in that ghost god.

It cannot be about skepticism as a skeptic would hold the same view about ghosts and gods being something that cannot be proven.

Atheism isn't skepticism, you are right.
Atheism is just a lack of belief in any gods or goddesses.

It cannot be about the science as ghosts are just as hard to verify as gods. It cannot be about reality or materialism as ghosts and gods are beyond these realms.

I think you are catching on... atheism is about one thing and thing only.
It's a lack of belief in gods or goddesses.

So what is the point of atheism?

When I call myself an atheist in these debates, for example, you know that I don't believe in gods or goddesses. That's the point, my friend.

I don't believe in gods or goddesses, so I LABEL myself an "atheist".
The word serves as a shortcut to my position on the matter.

My "opinion", if you will.

If it's just to say that they don't believe in gods then that is a pointless exercise as it does not prove anything because it is not based on anything as mentioned above. It would merely be an opinion.

Yes, atheism is merely an opinion on the existence of gods or goddesses.
You're catching on.

Yet atheists will go to great lengths to use science to prove their views are correct.

That's not exactly true.
I spend a lot of time disputing the claims made by religious folks.
They are the ones with all of the wonderful claims.

As a skeptic to religion, I demand sound reasoning and evidence for claims.
And in debates of ALL KINDS, I am always going to great lengths to show that my point of view is correct.

I'm doing that right now.
I'm mostly just correcting your mistakes here.

AS TO SCIENCE.... well, I agree with it. It's the best information we have on the nature of our reality. If you have anything better, maybe you should mention that, instead. I've never heard of anything better.

They can't because they also believe in ghosts.

I don't believe in ghosts.
And I don't equate ghosts and gods the way that you do, anyway.

I don't agree on your definition of a god or goddess.
The word "ghost" is commonly used to denote something different.

If an atheist wants to debate me about the existence of ghosts, I would. I'd use skepticism, of course. But the discussion wouldn't have anything to do with atheism.

If they want to use the science to disprove gods then that same science will disprove their own position of ghosts.

We can't disprove gods, so generally, we don't even try.
We allow religious folks to prove that their god or goddess is real, instead.

That is why I thought that to take the position of not believing in gods they would also have to be the same with all other supernatural things like ghosts, fairies ect.

Oh, well, that's another matter.
As a SKEPTIC, I would use the same methods to know if ghosts are real. But I separate the concept ghosts from gods.

And skepticism isn't atheism. One might lead to the other, but they aren't the same thing at all.

To me, it seems that there is a personal reason for not believing in gods.

To me, a good application of skepticism destroys religious belief.
Skepticism uses logic and that isn't what I would call "personal" or subjective.

I want to use only the BEST methods of thinking.
Skepticism is the best we got so far, so I want to use that.

The results of skepticism are reliable.

They may not want to believe in any gods because if they do then this will mean they will have to follow their teachings as well. So it may be a battle of wills.

That's a very narrow view.
I follow LOTS of rules, each and every day.

If religion was TRUE, I would follow the rules.
I used to think my religion was true, and I had no problems following the rules, or at least, no more problems than any other believer.

I just insisted on thinking clearly, and that spelled disaster for the religious claims.
So, eventually, I had to quit believing.