Is atheism lacking?

[historia]

This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:

If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.

I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.

I think we can all appreciate the case where a person might be ignorant of a particular topic and thus have no beliefs about it. That seems straight-forward.

But, if a person previously believed in X but now no longer believes in X, while spending time on an online forum debating X, it seems less straight-forward (to me anyway) to say that they simply "lack" belief in X. Even if that person is merely contending that there is insufficient evidence (for them, at least) to believe in X, surely we must conclude that constitutes a belief about X.


Question for debate: Is it accurate to say that atheists debating the existence of God on an online forum lack belief in God (or gods), or is there a more accurate way to describe their beliefs vis-a-vis God (or gods)?

[Miles]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #78]

Agnosticism is the better default position where all other positions derive/branch out from.


Agnosticism
Agnostic Atheist/Agnostic Theist
Atheism
Atheistic: non-Theist and anti-Theist[soft/hard]
Theism
Theistic: Theist and religious [soft/hard]

What, then, are your definitions of "agnosticism," "atheism," and "theism"? Definitions that distinguish each from the other two.



.

[2ndpillar2]

... An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings...

Then most theists are also atheists, as they too, denies the existence of many a deities, examples of denied deities includes Thor, Amaterasu, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl.

An atheist, and or Marxist, is a believer in a certain position, and acts religiously to promote such a notion. Such as going on a forum and defending their beliefs/non beliefs.

What about the atheists who don't promote atheism? I often promote moral subjectivism here, does that make moral subjectivism part of atheism? Obviously not, so I don't see what we promote has to do with what atheism is.

Your moral subjectivism, is simply a theist position, with you being the god, and a false god, at that.

That's a definition -mess and a false one as well. Since a poster is a real entity and you call such a person 'a god' clearly it exists and therefore cannot be false. But we can surely translate what you mean.

"Your moral subjectivism, is simply a theist position, with you being the god, and a false god, at that."

"Your atheism based views are Faith -based beliefs, and wrong ones, too".

Obviously just denialist muck -slinging but the muck was beautifully gift -wrapped, I have to say.

Maybe I can make it clearer. Moral subjectivism would be the god, manipulated by the real men behind it, making them the real false gods behind the curtain. As for gods, Mao, a man, is worshipped as a god, Kim, a real man, is worshipped as a god, etc. And according to some, "moral subjectivism" should be the lead god, of course based on men manipulating the data. And what is my "Faith"?

[brunumb]

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.

It's too easy to get bogged down in labels and their exact meaning.

"Early Christians were widely reviled as atheists because they did not believe in the existence of the Roman gods. During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the pagan deities in general and the Imperial cult of ancient Rome in particular."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... d+atheists

[brunumb]

Maybe I can make it clearer. Moral subjectivism would be the god, manipulated by the real men behind it, making them the real false gods behind the curtain. As for gods, Mao, a man, is worshipped as a god, Kim, a real man, is worshipped as a god, etc. And according to some, "moral subjectivism" should be the lead god, of course based on men manipulating the data. And what is my "Faith"?

All you have done now is made it even less clear by muddying the definition of god. Perhaps you could try making it actually clearer by defining the god to which you are assigning terms like theism and atheism.

Cards on the table. I do not believe that there are any gods. I believe that there are no gods. I do not definitively claim that their are no gods because I do not know if my beliefs are actually correct. I regard myself as an agnostic atheist.

[2ndpillar2]

Maybe I can make it clearer. Moral subjectivism would be the god, manipulated by the real men behind it, making them the real false gods behind the curtain. As for gods, Mao, a man, is worshipped as a god, Kim, a real man, is worshipped as a god, etc. And according to some, "moral subjectivism" should be the lead god, of course based on men manipulating the data. And what is my "Faith"?

All you have done now is made it even less clear by muddying the definition of god. Perhaps you could try making it actually clearer by defining the god to which you are assigning terms like theism and atheism.

Cards on the table. I do not believe that there are any gods. I believe that there are no gods. I do not definitively claim that their are no gods because I do not know if my beliefs are actually correct. I regard myself as an agnostic atheist.

Well, the Roman Senate disagreed with your conclusion, and named Julius Caesar a god, and his subsequent Roman emperors took on the role of being gods. The gods of atheism would be their moral subjectivism, which would be a god for each and every one of their moral subjectivism conclusions, based on the godhead of each atheist. Therefore, they are a religion of many gods, much like the "Christians" have more than one god, and actually follow the atheist, in that they nail the Law of God to a cross, and make their own "moral subjectivism decisions based on their own mental manipulations. That would put the atheist in the same boat as the "Christians"/theist. The road of the followers of the false prophets, the "Christians", apparently leads to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). Where does atheism lead, besides death? Since you seem ambivalent in what you believe or not believe, maybe you should wait until you jump into a fox hole to make the final decision, and just call yourself an agnostic.

[2ndpillar2]

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.

It's too easy to get bogged down in labels and their exact meaning.

"Early Christians were widely reviled as atheists because they did not believe in the existence of the Roman gods. During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the pagan deities in general and the Imperial cult of ancient Rome in particular."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... d+atheists

The Roman Caesars, being deemed gods, by the Roman Senate, can say and do whatever they want. They are like the Islamist who were able to cut off the head of the infidels, because the infidels do not believe in their prophet or their version of their god, because they had the power to do so. On the other hand, the early "Chrsitians" (Roman Catholic church), used the Inquisition to torture and burn individuals alive to get them into their boat. The present-day Marxist/Communist/atheist/fascist, simply cancel naysayers to their point of view, because they don't have sufficient power to cut off the heads of the naysayers.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #78]

Agnosticism is the better default position where all other positions derive/branch out from.


Agnosticism
Agnostic Atheist/Agnostic Theist
Atheism
Atheistic: non-Theist and anti-Theist[soft/hard]
Theism
Theistic: Theist and religious [soft/hard]

What, then, are your definitions of "agnosticism," "atheism," and "theism"? Definitions that distinguish each from the other two.



.

The premise is - "We exist within a creation."

Agnosticism is the default position which has the individual saying they do not know if the premise is true or not true.

Atheism branches away from Agnosticism in the direction that argues it is true that we do not exist within a creation.

Theism branches away from agnosticism in the direction that argues it is true that we do exist within a creation.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #78]

Agnosticism is the better default position where all other positions derive/branch out from.


Agnosticism
Agnostic Atheist/Agnostic Theist
Atheism
Atheistic: non-Theist and anti-Theist[soft/hard]
Theism
Theistic: Theist and religious [soft/hard]

What, then, are your definitions of "agnosticism," "atheism," and "theism"? Definitions that distinguish each from the other two.



.

agnosticism. Not knowing (about anything, but usually applied to the god -claims)

Theism, Belief in one or other of the god -claims.

atheism. Non -belief in any god -claim. quote=2ndpillar2 post_id=1057358 time=1637964252 user_id=15361]

... An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings...

Then most theists are also atheists, as they too, denies the existence of many a deities, examples of denied deities includes Thor, Amaterasu, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl.

An atheist, and or Marxist, is a believer in a certain position, and acts religiously to promote such a notion. Such as going on a forum and defending their beliefs/non beliefs.

What about the atheists who don't promote atheism? I often promote moral subjectivism here, does that make moral subjectivism part of atheism? Obviously not, so I don't see what we promote has to do with what atheism is.

Your moral subjectivism, is simply a theist position, with you being the god, and a false god, at that.

That's a definition -mess and a false one as well. Since a poster is a real entity and you call such a person 'a god' clearly it exists and therefore cannot be false. But we can surely translate what you mean.

"Your moral subjectivism, is simply a theist position, with you being the god, and a false god, at that."

"Your atheism based views are Faith -based beliefs, and wrong ones, too".

Obviously just denialist muck -slinging but the muck was beautifully gift -wrapped, I have to say.

Maybe I can make it clearer. Moral subjectivism would be the god, manipulated by the real men behind it, making them the real false gods behind the curtain. As for gods, Mao, a man, is worshipped as a god, Kim, a real man, is worshipped as a god, etc. And according to some, "moral subjectivism" should be the lead god, of course based on men manipulating the data. And what is my "Faith"?
[/quote]

Moral subjectivism is not to blame for dictators, whether they become icons like Mao or Stalin, for a while or even regarded as a god like the Kim family.

Moral subjectivism is a recognition that morals are meaningful only to humans, though indeed many social animals have moral codes as well.

Since humans can reason we try to work out what is right The subjectivism and open discussion about morals is what stops it being a god (unquestioned) and in fact it is religion that puts up morality as a god because it is supposed to have been given by a god.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

agnosticism. Not knowing (about anything, but usually applied to the god -claims)

Search: What is the origin of agnosticism?
The word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in London by T.H. Huxley, a British biologist and champion of the Darwinian theory of evolution. He coined it as a suitable label for his own position.

Search: What are the core beliefs of agnostics?
The premise of agnosticism is that humans do not have enough knowledge of the world, the universe, or the supernatural to claim the definite existence or non-existence of a supreme being. Agnosticism deals primarily with knowledge and evidence, rather than with beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe I can make it clearer. Moral subjectivism would be the god, manipulated by the real men behind it, making them the real false gods behind the curtain. As for gods, Mao, a man, is worshipped as a god, Kim, a real man, is worshipped as a god, etc. And according to some, "moral subjectivism" should be the lead god, of course based on men manipulating the data. And what is my "Faith"?

All you have done now is made it even less clear by muddying the definition of god. Perhaps you could try making it actually clearer by defining the god to which you are assigning terms like theism and atheism.

Cards on the table. I do not believe that there are any gods. I believe that there are no gods. I do not definitively claim that their are no gods because I do not know if my beliefs are actually correct. I regard myself as an agnostic atheist.

Well, the Roman Senate disagreed with your conclusion, and named Julius Caesar a god, and his subsequent Roman emperors took on the role of being gods. The gods of atheism would be their moral subjectivism, which would be a god for each and every one of their moral subjectivism conclusions, based on the godhead of each atheist. Therefore, they are a religion of many gods, much like the "Christians" have more than one god, and actually follow the atheist, in that they nail the Law of God to a cross, and make their own "moral subjectivism decisions based on their own mental manipulations. That would put the atheist in the same boat as the "Christians"/theist. The road of the followers of the false prophets, the "Christians", apparently leads to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). Where does atheism lead, besides death? Since you seem ambivalent in what you believe or not believe, maybe you should wait until you jump into a fox hole to make the final decision, and just call yourself an agnostic.

My goodness, that's weird. While I can't speak for individual atheists, atheism itself (as a subset of rationalism) would not afford god -status to any morality except the well -being of humans which is the basis we have from which all other morality stems. The fact that morality - what is right to do - is discussed and debated, and is recognised to have paradoxes, prevents it becoming a god either individually or collectively. I'll leave the Christians to discuss your remarks about false prophets, and there's nothing i like more than to see believers who all think they Interpret scripture correctly fall out.