Oh, FFS! Now I’m considering that you may be a troll.
Atheism , in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of god. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Thats from wikipedia. I didn’t make that up. Perhaps not the best source, but it is a source.
So, no one here has the position that there is no god, or gods? That is a possible definition or perception of atheism.
You made a claim to know what most people thought?
Where in that link does it demonstrate anything to support your original claim?
It depends how you define free will. The difference between compatibilism and no-free-will, is a disagreement over how “free will” is defined. It’s not a disagreement over matters of fact. Compatibilism, is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, it faces criticism for potentially redefining “free will” in a way that undermines its core meaning, and for failing to adequately address the implications of a causally determined world on moral responsibility.
As I said earlier, if everything were predetermined, then morality would be rather pointless, to me anyway.
Really? I’d have said some autonomy of choice was essential for moral assertions to make any sense, how can something be immoral or moral if we have no choice but to do it? We’d become amoral automatons.
A choice requires some autonomy of will, and yes without any a priori experiences those choices could not be considered moral, when we say babies are innocent, this is likely what we are expressing, their actions can carry no guilt, as they have nothing to base decisions on, though I am dubious babies or children have free will, in the sense an adult human being does.
Only to another cat, all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups must necessarily possess the ability to learn what is, and what is not, acceptable behaviour to the group. Many other species exhibit moral behaviour, and empathy.
Firstly if you’re quoting the link, you should place the text in quotes so we know it is a quote, secondly that doesn’t appear to support this:
Now compare that to your earlier claim:
…certainly not the emboldened part. Also 72.8% of whom? If you meant "most people in a particular surveyed group then you misrepresented it as “most people”, so you need to clarify what you’re claiming firstly, as it seems to be changing.
That position is not atheism. Though it is atheistic, and a person holding it would be an atheist. As I have said three times now, the dictionary defines atheism as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, this is not a claim about deities or religions.
What has this to do with you conflating theistic belief, with how organised religions conduct themselves, to misrepresent what Cyber said above, about someone believing in god not breaking her legs or picking her pockets?
How is this relevant? Your tangential segue into Buddhism is a rabbit hole too far for me. You’ve gone from conflating belief in a deity with how organised religions conduct themselves, to Buddhism, I am starting to get dizzy at the way you’re changing your original claim and the context.
You said atheism was a claim no deities exist, and now you’re quoting Wikipedia stating plainly that the broadest definition makes no such claim, do you really not see the problem? If you had said some atheists believe or claim, that there is no god, that would be fine, but that is not what you said is it?
Sweet whistling Geronimo! What an atheist believes is irrelevant, the definition of atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, what beliefs any atheists hold beyond that, does not redefine atheism.
No it isn’t, it is a definition of some atheists, atheist and atheism are not the same ffs. Some people who don’t believe in mermaids believe the world is flat, would you seriously claim this meant disbelieving in mermaids should be defined as the belief the world is flat?
@nonselcei, you are not an atheist. It’s advisable, therefore, that you accept the meaning of atheism from folks who identify as such.
I’m not sure that this is a place to promote atheism, but rather a place to provide support for atheists.
Adopting an atheistic stance can be very difficult and/or challenging for a lot of people . . . especially if they are defecting from a fundementalist situation, and there are even countries that impose the death penalty for atheism (Iran is an example, as is Afghanistan).
It is also quite possible that a new atheist may episodes of regret and/or existential fear, and this forum provides a source of comfort and reassurance to new atheists who may be coping with social and/or familial rejection over an important life decision.
2 Likes
I agree. The place you would “promote atheism” is out among theists. You would, for example, park yourself at a table in the park with a sign like “God doesn’t exist. Convince me I’m wrong.” And you would debate people. If that was your thing.
In my observation people come to atheism organically for the most part. The “promises of God” didn’t pan out, or never made sense in the first place, or they just weren’t exposed to theism in any meaningful way as a child, or they had negative experiences with theists and theism – stuff like that. And then they come here, to have sympathetic ears to vent at, or to work out their lingering existential issues from whatever entanglements they had with theism in their past. Some of these people have been greatly harmed / wronged and are still working out the trauma of theist abuse or the social cost of abandoning the only support system they’ve ever known. Others, not so much, or it’s way in the rear-view mirror. But it’s still nice to talk with like minded people and to be able to support people who are in pain, learning how to be themselves.
As for the theists who come here, most of them think they have one or more “angles” we haven’t thought of. They often assume that our beliefs are as lightly or as or ill-considered as theirs. That we have just fallen in with the “wrong crowd” or something. It has become boring to me to interact with them, and it is not anywhere near the main reason I’m here. Mostly those kinds of interactions tell me which way the wind is blowing in Apologetics Land. Like here and on another site I frequent we’ve gotten some variation on the recently banished user bsengstock20’s modal logic monomania, so it’s clearly a trend in the theist zeitgeist, just like, say, Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict) style pseudo-intellectual apologetics was prominent 30 years ago. But ultimately this isn’t about “winning” against other’s “arguments”, it is about people who have long ago made up their minds talking past each other. So it’s not where things are at, if you will.
1 Like