Atheism and the afterlife

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #10]

Aside from which, 'perfect bliss' seems to rely on taking away everything that is 'You' and making one an immortal, eternal ball or orgasmic gas without a 'you' even there to enjoy it. Personally I can't see that as much better as Oblivion, which i what atheism offers.

An Aside.
This type of information is exactly the kind of information which causes confusion about atheism/atheist position.

As a position, Atheism simply does not have "the option of oblivion" on offer, as it is simply a state of lacking belief in gods.
In that, there is no reason why an atheist cannot believe in an afterlife situation where the belief in gods can still be lacking.

For example, an atheist could believe in an afterlife experience which involves being an immortal, eternal ball or orgasmic gas with a 'you' there to enjoy it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

But agnosticism is not a belief position.

Nor are atheism or theism - beliefs come as knowledge develops, and positions change as the knowledge branches out.

Theism is by definition belief in a god or gods.

Yet one can be a theist without adopting belief in a god or gods.

What the common definition of theism is - "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." is more appropriate to the description of 'religious' which branches out from theism.

As one example which comes to mind, the idea of a deist god does not fall under the common definition of theism, yet it is a theist position nonetheless.

So if we are working with definitions which are not appropriate, confusion can occur...which is why I wrote what I did in post #1.

Atheism is simply non -belief in any god claim,

That is different from saying 'Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."

"non -belief in any god claim" would be the position of non-theists and anti-theists, which branch from out of atheism.

[Tcg]

[Replying to William in post #21]

Why do some try to complicate this. Take all the theists and put them in a box. Those left out of the box are atheists.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

But agnosticism is not a belief position.

Nor are atheism or theism - beliefs come as knowledge develops, and positions change as the knowledge branches out.

Theism is by definition belief in a god or gods.

Yet one can be a theist without adopting belief in a god or gods.

What the common definition of theism is - "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." is more appropriate to the description of 'religious' which branches out from theism.

As one example which comes to mind, the idea of a deist god does not fall under the common definition of theism, yet it is a theist position nonetheless.

So if we are working with definitions which are not appropriate, confusion can occur...which is why I wrote what I did in post #1.

Atheism is simply non -belief in any god claim,

That is different from saying 'Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."

"non -belief in any god claim" would be the position of non-theists and anti-theists, which branch from out of atheism.

Atheism and theism are by definition, belief - responses to the knowledge position of 'don't know', which agnosticism is. Perhaps you use the terms to mean other things, but then I don't see how they would work, never mind relate to the actualities of the thought -systems.

One cannot be a theist without belief in a god or gods. That is what the term means, one who has a belief in a god or god. The desist god is still a god so that makes one who believes in a deist god a theist. And the definition you gave broadly covers all kinds of gods. That the creator god concept is singled out 'specifically' (but not exclusively) does not alter that. Indeed a Creator - god concept is not be itself 'Religious'i n the sense of relating to a religion. Indeed (following the Dover trial, Creationism has said that the case for a Creator does not depend on it being the god of the Bible. I think the cofusion is of your own making.


Lack of belief in any gods is as near non - belief in any god - claim as makes no difference. (if 'god' is used in the common usage). That the same thing is said in a different way does not make it a different thing said. In fact you pretty much say so: "non -belief in any god claim" would be the position of non-theists and anti-theists, which branch from out of atheism". Non belief is not only the (belief) position of non- theists and anti -theists which branch out of atheism (ok, I get that idea) but non theists and those who have a non - belief in any god -claim are the same persons and 'atheist' is what such a person, by definition, is. And anti -theist might indeed 'branch' out of atheism, but that's just what an atheist may or may not decide to do about not believing in any gods or god -claim.

This is just the same as a theist being by definition one who believes in a god or accepts some god -claim (god being the usual meaning), and Hindu, Creationist, Deist and irreligious theist would all branch out from theism because a theist by definition accepts some kind of god claim.

This is actually very simple but it is the misunderstanding and mis-application of definitions that makes it look confused.

Oh yes, that reminds me. Have you any idea where that flow -chart came from? Just asking as it wasn't wrong exactly and is not to blame for your mis-application of terms.

[William]

The idea that atheism offers oblivion [see post #1] contradicts the claim that atheism as a position is simply lacking belief in gods.

We can argue about definitions as to what non theists think theists are and what theists should believe in order to be theists, etc et al, but I think in doing so it hasn't been helpful to the main point which is that atheism isn't about believing that when an individual dies, there is only going to be 'oblivion' rather than a next-phase experience. Atheism is about lacking belief in gods.

The diagram was my effort to show that if one is an atheist [lacks belief in gods] in order to develop that into lacking belief in any next phase experience [after death of the body the conscious personality of the individual survives] one shifts from being atheist to being non-theist or anti-theist.

I am happy to consider that if it is common understanding that a theist believes in "God" as in if I make the statement "I think there is a mind behind creation which purposefully created the universe" this constitutes "belief in gods" even that I can still remain agnostic in that "I don't know".

Thinking it may be the case is different from believing it is the case.

So certainly an atheist can believe in the idea that there is more than just 'oblivion' at the end of a bodies lifespan.

But a non-theist or an anti-theist cannot, so therefore the statement "Personally I can't see that as much better as Oblivion, which is what atheism offers." is not accurate and gives a false reading.

The true statement would have to be "Personally I can't see that as much better as Oblivion, which is what non-theism/anti-theism offers"