To be clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It’s not a religious belief. I am an Atheist, so therefor I don’t think any deity exists until proven otherwise.
1 Like
Well. Atheists don’t believe in any deity and we don’t follow a religion. While I have no evidence and therefor am not making any claims, @Sheldon. I stand firm that there are no deities until those that make claims on a daily basis that their gods are real, such as Christians and Muslims to present real court based evidence to back up those claims and prove to me & everyone else that their deity is “real”. I ask that of all Theists and not just of Christians or Muslims. If you go around saying a deity is real and talking as if it were a fact, then find hard evidence.
I’m aware of things such as historical fiction like Assassin’s Creed where they place fictional characters and plotlines in during actual historical events. They could have used the same method with the Bible.
Your belief in a deity? I don’t believe you sorry, I’m not sure how it can, however that is a bare claim. maybe you could offer an historical fact you think demonstrates some objective evidence for any deity? Philosophy doesn’t prove things, it’s a method of studying the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
This is subjective by definition, it doesn’t represent objective evidence, and I am dubious that it can be demonstrated in any objective way as i have heard enough theists make such claims and seen them fail to do so.
It’s in the dictionary, it’s Etymology has no real bearing on what it means, merely on it’s provenance.
No, type the words atheism and definition into Google. That should get you the dictionary definition, dictionary definitions reflect common usage. When i say I am an atheist i am using the primary dictionary definition, if i were not I would clarify that with the secondary definitions that applied, or use another word.
Atheism is the lack or absence of a belief, thus it does not carry a burden of proof.
1 Like
Most Christians from where I live don’t understand what Atheism is. A lot of them get it confused with Satanism and I have no idea how they come to that conclusion. So I’m not surprised that @Agnostotheist doesn’t know what it is.
Without checking a dictionary apparently. if a fact is as easy to verify as the definition of a word, and someone doesn’t bother to take a few seconds to do it, that bodes badly for how much critical scrutiny they subjected religious beliefs to that for centuries have been indoctrinating children, torturing and murdering opponents, critics, and even other adherents of those religions with different views on doctrinal teachings and dogma.
Atheism is not a belief, it is not a claim, nor is it an assertion or a worldview or a religion, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. It does not therefore carry any burden of proof.
An atheist however may make claims, hold beliefs (but not in any deity or deities) make assertions and hold a worldview, all of which would carry a burden of proof.
It really isn’t that complex.
I am always slightly surprised, perhaps that will wear off one day. Just as many theists don’t seem to know what agnosticism means. many atheists I’ve spoken to as well. Again given that its definition can be verified in seconds, I can’t help but be a little surprised, each and every time.
My position as an atheist is that I have not accepted the claim that a god exists. I have not rejected the claim, not do I reject that there is a god. I have just not been convinced because the evidence or proof presented to me does not convince me.
Sometimes people believe that since a theist is a philosophical position, being an atheist is also a philosophical position. It does not have to be because some atheists do wade into that murky water.
For me, being an atheist is not accepting the god claim.
Only when the contents of the car’s trunk are examined can I accept any claim. And this is the crux of many discussions; the proof, the evidence, something more tangible than just a claim must be presented for this (myself) to accept the god claim.
But that assumes that God can be defined based on human perception. I don’t know what God “is” so I argue that God can’t be considered that way. I suggest that it more like say happiness. Are you saying if I were an ahappiest, then I don’t have a burden to show happiness does not exist.
But still you believe in something you cannot define?
No it doesn’t, I don’t a believe any deity or deities exist, that’s what atheism means. I don’t know about you, when I disbelieve something, I am not minded to waste time making assumptions about it. TBH that seems more like something you’re assuming about atheism, based on a flawed or incorrect understanding of it.
You can’t claim not to know what something is, in the same sentence you then go on to claim a way it can’t be considered? You don’t seem to see the epistemological contradiction?
-
You claim a deity exists, this carries a burden of proof.
-
You assert a deity can’t be defined based on human perception, this carries a burden of proof.
I disbelieve both claims, because you have offered zero evidence for them, this disbelief does not carry a burden of proof, to assert otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Disbelieving something is not a claim, or a contrary claim.
.
What is more like saying happiness, and more than what?
I am not saying that as it is a question you have asked, however I’ll grant your boon, ahappiness is not a word, you’ve just made it up, so I can have no idea what you mean by it, thus I can make no comment on it. FYI the burden of proof lies with the claim, or a contrary claim, disbelieving a claim does not carry a burden of proof. Other than religion I’m not aware of any context where anyone even tries to say otherwise.
1 Like
Yes. It is impossible to show happiness does not exist. If you actually believed that; your model predicts there won’t be any evidence you are right. The burden of proof would necessarily need to be on the person insisting that happiness exists; because their model predicts that this evidence will exist.
1 Like
Belief, by definition, constitutes a lack of definition or proof to a claim. In this way, it’s impossible to believe something that has definitve proof and cancels all counterclaims.
I believe Agnostotheist is confused on what exactly the terms “agnostic” and “athest” actually mean, but I cannot be entirely sure. What I do know is that Agnostotheist believes that a lack of belief in God in the present time implies a belief that God cannot exist, which is entirely untrue.
1 Like
Sheldon, I’m fine with you not believing my claims. I doubt I can offer any evidence you would accept.
1 Like
It looks like the standard boilerplate attempt to define atheism out of existence to me.
In simple terms, agnostic means not sure what to believe, an atheist is not a theist—yes?
Good to know, but I don’t believe or disbelieve things for validation from others, and I set the same standard for all claims, without bias.
Why don’t you demonstrate any objective evidence you have, instead of offering prima facie unevidenced and subjective assumptions about me, that seem to imply some sort of bias on my part?
Because it’s already proven with scientific evidence, duh. Happiness is a Neurotransmitter which is a brain chemical. Four main brain chemicals, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins, all play a role in how you experience happiness.
Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. (Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not about belief.)
Theism is defined as the belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism, though I have yet to hear a sound rationale as to why anyone would believe a claim they profess to believe they can know nothing about.
FYI agnosticism would be my position on all unfalsifiable claims, as would disbelief.
2 Likes
I didn’t say anything about proof. I’m just wondering about believing in stuff that you cannot define. Like the argle-poxed Gryphtard of the Bielzor. Would it make sense to believe in Her without defining what and who She is?
Yes, and that’s exactly what I (and others) have been trying to explain to him/her.
That isn’t what it meant according to several of my philosophy professors and textbooks. But I guess you can have it mean anything you want to you. Of course that is going to make communication much more difficult.
Around here, we mean an atheist is someone who does not have (or lacks) a belief in god(s). A theist is someone who has a belief in a deity/god(s). An agnostic is a label that describes a totally different attribute that has to do with knowledge, not belief. Making it possible to be an agnostic theist or atheist. If you use those words with alternative definitions here, you are just going to manufacture unnecessary confusion.
Didn’t we all start out as Atheists / agnostics until mom and dad walked into our bedroom and forced their religion on us?
For me, I asked where animals came from and my grandmother said “Jesus” put them there. I asked who Jesus was and when I got to meet him. I was 5 years old and I thought he was my grandmother’s neighbor. She got pissed that I didn’t know what she was talking about and started shaking the finger at my mom that she needed to teach me about Christianity. So for a while as a kid, I just took it as a fact and then started questioning it later as I got smarter you could say.