Can you be an atheist?

[Wootah]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Wrong again. I am an atheist and there are a whole bunch of us.


Tcg

All right clearly this is too far from me. So some corrections, please.

1. Everything is defined by its properties.
2. Atheism is defined as not having a property (a lack of belief in god/gods).
3. Atheism isn't possible.

Literally can't be an atheist it is the absence of a belief. It's like defining an apple by it not having a banana attached to it.

Is anything else defined by not having a property? Flaws, counter-examples, in this critique please?

I went searching on the internet and found a past version of me here. I posted this back in 2012 lol: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=9013

So a hole might be a counter-example?
Atheist.
Bachelor.
Counter-example.
Doppelganger.
Ex-Catholic.
Foreigner.
darkness is the absence of light
cold is the absence of heat
happiness is the absence of misery

I'll circle back to these counter examples later after thinking about them.

So, Can you be an atheist?

[Tcg]

So, Can you be an atheist?

I not only can be one, I am one as I've clearly explained.


Tcg

[Wootah]

So, Can you be an atheist?

I not only can be one, I am one as I've clearly explained.


Tcg

OK, you are .... Let's leave the thread for those that want to debate.

[benchwarmer]

1. Everything is defined by its properties.

The property of an atheist is lack of belief in gods.

2. Atheism is defined as not having a property (a lack of belief in god/gods).

Incorrect. The property is a disbelief in gods.

3. Atheism isn't possible.

That's like saying disbelief in the Easter Bunny is not possible.

Are you one of those people that thinks everyone really believes in your god? If I recall correctly, this isn't the first thread of yours trying to undermine/redefine atheism for some reason. Curious...

[Tcg]

So, Can you be an atheist?

I not only can be one, I am one as I've clearly explained.


Tcg

OK, you are .... Let's leave the thread for those that want to debate.

All threads are open to any who want to address the question for debate. I did exactly that and will continue to participate if I so choose.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Are you one of those people that thinks everyone really believes in your god? If I recall correctly, this isn't the first thread of yours trying to undermine/redefine atheism for some reason. Curious...

I'm not sure why some try to complicate it when it isn't complicated. It's as simple as this - ask someone if they believe in god/gods. If they answer "yes", they are a theist. Any other answer or even no answer, and they are an atheist.

Another way to explain it is to get a really big box. Put all those who believe in god/gods into the box. Those left out of the box are atheists.

Clearly, it is possible to be an atheist. Don't answer "yes" in the one case or don't qualify for the box in the other example. There is no mystery involved.


Tcg

[Wootah]

1. Everything is defined by its properties.

The property of an atheist is lack of belief in gods.

2. Atheism is defined as not having a property (a lack of belief in god/gods).

Incorrect. The property is a disbelief in gods.

3. Atheism isn't possible.

That's like saying disbelief in the Easter Bunny is not possible.

Are you one of those people that thinks everyone really believes in your god? If I recall correctly, this isn't the first thread of yours trying to undermine/redefine atheism for some reason. Curious...

I think it is a battle of beliefs. Being an atheist is a front to not have to compare what you believe vs what Christians believe. Then becoming Christian makes a lot more sense to you.

Maybe the word atheist makes sense given the scale of the belief in God(s) over time?

edit: What I mean is that there is no word for the lack of belief in the easter bunny because we don't confront that often enough.

[Tcg]

Being an atheist is a front to not have to compare what you believe vs what Christians believe.

I'm not sure exactly what this is intended to mean, but its flaws are obvious. Being an atheist is not a front. An atheist is one who lacks belief in god/gods. It also is based on the misconception that Christianity and atheism are the only two games in town. There are many theists who aren't Christians. And oddly enough, some Christians who are atheists.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Wrong again. I am an atheist and there are a whole bunch of us.


Tcg

All right clearly this is too far from me. So some corrections, please.

1. Everything is defined by its properties.
2. Atheism is defined as not having a property (a lack of belief in god/gods).
3. Atheism isn't possible.

Literally can't be an atheist it is the absence of a belief. It's like defining an apple by it not having a banana attached to it.

Is anything else defined by not having a property? Flaws, counter-examples, in this critique please?

I went searching on the internet and found a past version of me here. I posted this back in 2012 lol: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=9013

So a hole might be a counter-example?
Atheist.
Bachelor.
Counter-example.
Doppelganger.
Ex-Catholic.
Foreigner.
darkness is the absence of light
cold is the absence of heat
happiness is the absence of misery

I'll circle back to these counter examples later after thinking about them.

So, Can you be an atheist?

I like that. That's one of the neatest syllogistic arguments I've seen. I have an idea where it's wrong, but lets run with it and see. As in the Christian student and the atheist professor polemical parable, Dark is not a thing that exists, nor is cold. They are merely an absence of light (which is a thing) and also heat (which is a thing, made of vibrating particles, or rather the vibration of different kinds of particles. The Vibration/energy being the Property). Thus evil did not exist and was not created by God, but was an absence of good, which was created by God, being his personality property.

I may have to see how the refutation was worded, but an equivalence occurs to me with weather. Say there is no such thing as good weather as it is merely an absence of bad weather. There is no dry season, merely the season not being wet. It seems to me that the absence of a thing can also define the Property of it. Weather that has the property of not being wet, a substance that has the property of low temperature because it lacks heat, a person or group that is what we call 'evil' because it lacks the wish or ability to do the good.

So I'd argue that atheists, being people, have a property of not believing in any god - claim. It is a real thing defined by a lack, as being healthy is a lack of being ill. It is a property of the being.

Bottom line, we are people who do not credit any god - claim, we are real, and our disbelief is real, we are called atheists (non -theists will do,we are not dogmatic, except about foisting the name "Brights" on us) there may not be a Thing,'atheism' but there are persons with a real negative property of not crediting any god - claim.

What was it popped into my head just now...damn' old age...no memory....Ah! I remember! A group of pensioners did a climb of mount Everest. When they got to the top one asked "What did we come up here for?" No! it was... yes! It was an Axiom on my former board that atheism really wasn't an actual Thing and only existed because theism did. See the stamp -collector analogy. There are many non - stamp collectors, but the term is not needed because nobody is telling them they are evil and will burn in Hell because they don't collect stamps. If theism vanished or had never been, there would not be any atheists. We only have pacifists, because we have war, and only Vegans because we eat animal products. Yes, a lack of an in - yore- face Ism is also a property of humans, whether it exists or is just lacking.

[Miles]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Wrong again. I am an atheist and there are a whole bunch of us.


Tcg

All right clearly this is too far from me. So some corrections, please.

1. Everything is defined by its properties.
2. Atheism is defined as not having a property (a lack of belief in god/gods).
3. Atheism isn't possible.

Literally can't be an atheist it is the absence of a belief. It's like defining an apple by it not having a banana attached to it.

Is anything else defined by not having a property? Flaws, counter-examples, in this critique please?

As a syllogism it is flawed.

Flaws:

1. Because "property" appears in both the 1st and 2nd premises, by default it functions as the middle term. Therefore, "everything" must be your major term and appear in the conclusion. It does not.

2. Aside from "atheism" in the conclusion, the other term, "possible," must appear in the second premise, yet it doesn't appear anywhere. Can't just drop terms into conclusions from out of nowhere.

3. Asserting that "Atheism" does not have a property because it's a "lack of belief" does not rob it of having a property. A lack is a property (a condition). It's the property of not having. Therefore it is an untrue premise, which, if everything else were in order, would still make your argument unsound.

In the sound syllogism below---Its premises are true and its form, technically called FERIO, is valid.

No homework is fun [OR, "a lack of homework is fun"]
Some reading is homework
________________________
∴ Some reading is not fun

"No homework" is a valid term describing the condition (property) of a not having homework.

So, Can you be an atheist?

I sure can, and so can you.