My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

Don't you say that in the States? Or is it just that you think it fits the scene very well in this instance? And yes I find he can indeed be a dick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

^^^
Is it frustration with word meanings or with careless bullheaded misunderstandings?
When I call myself an atheist, I am saying I am not a theist. Not a theist means I do not believe in any god(s). It does not mean I believe there are no gods.
The god portrayed in the Christian bible, taken as a whole, cannot exist due to contradictions. I suspect the same of the god portrayed in the koran but I do not know it well enough to make a flat positive statement. Perhaps there was or is a god which different writers said different things about. Of course, that would do away with the bible being the holy inerrant word of god.
I cannot know whether any god(s) do exist until 1 or more comes out of hiding. I do know that if an omnipotent god exists, it obviously does not want me to know or does not care. I also know it would have no standing to judge me without living my life in my body. I know that no god has ever told me to do or not to do anything.
Until some god(s) shows up, its existence has no discernable effect on me.
Some atheists say there are no gods in reaction to the unsupported assertion that there are gods (or a god). Some atheists say they believe there are no gods. Neither of those are inherent in being an atheist.
A = not & theist = believing in god(s). A = not & gnostic = knowing. Atheist is not believing & agnostic is not knowing. No significant difference. The word agnostic was coined & became popular because some atheists did not want to be called atheist. Every person who is not a theist is an atheist by definition.
Atheism does not mean believing that there are no gods tho some atheists might believe that. Atheism does not mean being against organized religion for other people tho that does apply to some atheists. Some atheists somehow think religion is mostly a good thing for most people. Atheism is not necessarily rejection of anything tho it sometimes results from rejection of theism.
Atheists have different views, attitudes & beliefs about many things. Some atheists are former theists & some never were theist. The only thing certain about all atheists is that they are not theists or in other words, they do not believe any god(s) exist.

<>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as ''atheism'' goes, you can define how it suits you. Some believe god(s) don't exist, some don't. It really makes no difference as to whether or not god(s) exist.

I understand when atheists say they don't believe that god(s) don't exist. But for them, god(s) don't actually exist, although they may not believe they don't exist. In essence, currently, god(s), do not exist, as far as you're aware. Do you agree that is a fact?

Agreed.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

^^^
It is not what suits me or how I can define it. That is the definition. Simply that & nothing more.

Gods do not exist as far as I am aware. Gods do not exist as far as you are aware.

<>

 

The latter. For some reason it just painted a particularly vivid and humorous picture.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

'Atheism' is basically a disbelief, or a lack of belief in the existence of God, or gods.
"Disbelieve" is an inability, or refuse to accept that something is real, or true.
To lack something, is to be without, or not have enough of that thing.

To believe that God does not exist, because there is nothing that shows, or convinces you it does not exist, amounts to the same thing as God not actually existing.
For you to assert that God does not exist, as far as I'm aware, you need to know what is meant by God.
But, your claim is, that God does not exist as far as you're aware. So how can you account for mine, or anyone else's awareness?

Jan.

 

The moon passes between the earth and the sun and you are "aware" that a dragon is eating the sun. Your "awareness" is mistaken.

 

Do you agree that basically, atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief, in the existence of God, or gods?

You're assuming that awareness of God, is the same as awareness of dragons eating sun's (regardless of visibility) .
But if you are not aware of God, hence your atheism, why would you make that assumption?

Jan.

 

Once again you cherry-pick the definitions of words to suit your own interpretation.
In both these words you pick the definition that contains the implication that God actually exists.
From your point of view, as a believer, I can see why you think that your definitions are valid and acceptable to the atheist.
Unfortunately for an atheist to accept your definition would require them to first agree with the implication that God actually exists.
No doubt you can see the issue?

So please stop defining words to suit your agenda

Disbelief in the sense the atheists use it, as you know full well, and as you have been informed repeatedly over the various threads you have tanked, is simply the absence of belief that God exists.
Similarly a lack of belief that God exists is to lack the belief that God exists: some people, such as yourself, have the belief that God exists, while others (i.e. atheists) lack that belief.

So you like to argue.
No doubt you probably believe that as well.
Unfortunately you are speaking purely from the practical aspect of non-belief, not the intellectual.
You are a broken record on this matter.
You refuse to listen to what others inform you.
To listen and to then offer a well argued counter would be fine - but all you do is keep reasserting the same patter.

Original cause.
Summum bonum.
Creator.
That's really all one needs to know, before people inconsistently add on various attributes and properties.

There are numerous ways to account for it:
1) God exists but has not made himself aware to the atheist.
2) God exists and has made himself aware but the atheist is unable to recognise.
3) God exists, has made himself aware and is recognised by the atheist but they simply refuse to acknowledge.
3) God does not exist and the theist is simply mistaken in the way they interpret their experiences and belief, whether unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge alternate explanations that don't require "God did it" as an explanation.
4) God does not exist and the theist is lying about their experiences.
I'm sure there are more.

So unless you can demonstrate which of those is correct...?

You can dress it up however you want, but please desist in insulting the agnostic atheist position by willfully misrepresenting their position.

 

Baldeee, I wouldn't bother. Jan has shown no capability in countless years of understanding, let alone acknowledging, the agnostic atheist position. It is alien to him and his thinking, and as such he will use any trick in the book so as not to confront the rationality of it.

 

Yes, I can see the issue. But I didn't make up the meaning of any words I basically defined.

What is the difference?

You seem to have a special meaning for the words I defined, that only apply to atheists such as yourself.

Those are aspects that describe God, but that's not what you need to know, in order to accept that God Is.

None of these account for Sideshowbob's assumption that awareness of God, is the same as awareness of sun-eating dragons. Sideshowbob's assumption merely accentuate his atheism.

I've said nothing wrong Baldeee.

From Wikipedia...

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]...

Would you say that the broadest term describes your atheism?

Jan.

 

They do this all the time. Shift definition, misrepresent, pick one interpretation and keep repeating as how the word doesn't mean what it means but something else; that you don't believe what you say you believe or disbelieve, but something else .... until people grow so bored with repeating the same arguments that they simply stop using the words.... and thus, effectively yield those words to the manipulative spinners. We've seen it happen to almost the entire language of political discourse, effectively silencing sensible criticism of prevailing policies.

Well, I won't be deprived of my vocabulary.
If I have called someone out on this same fraud a hundred times and they repeat it, I'll call it again the hundred and first time. Tedious, tiresome, but important.
I do not believe the stories on which prevailing religions are founded.
I do not believe the gods that they name and describe exist or ever have existed.
I do not believe that the laws laid down by those those gods are relevant or should be binding on anyone alive today.
I do not believe that any person has inside information from a supernatural authority that should have any influence on legislation, education or civil behaviour.

If you like the idea of a conscious earth or a conscious universe or a simulated world or invisible spirits or wood-sprites or UFO's or ghosts - fine. It's not my problem.
I'm still an atheist, simply because that's what describes a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

 

^^^
You are the 1 attempting to define words how it suits you. I gave the correct definition & elaborated to be as clear as possible. You seem to have a special meaning for words which fit your belief.
Atheism is basicly & totally not theism or in other words, not believing in gods.. That is it & that is all it is.
Disbelief has several related yet distinct definitions. You use the 1 which fits your belief.
Tho the word lack need not be involved in this, you are trying to twist it to serve your needs. Long ago, the meaning of lack (& want) was more like need but today it is most often used to mean something 1 does not have, regardless of whether 1 needs it. When someone says they lack a belief, they are usually only saying they do not have that belief.
Gods existing or not existing does not depend on my belief or nonbelief or on yours & believing or not believing certainly does not amount to the same things as gods existing or not existing. Whether unicorns, elves, ghosts or parallel universes exist does not depend on belief or nonbelief.
I never asserted that no gods exist. Which god are you referring to? I know what is meant by god by many people. I cannot know what you mean unless you explain it but you do not speak for most theists.
It is silly to refer to "god does not exist as far as I am aware" as a claim. It is a definite fact which would be absurd to argue with.
It is not for me to account for your beliefs. You can try to do that if you want.

<>

 

^^^
I hesitate to speak for others but you should not assume that atheists need such. Having no reason & no need to believe in gods, it would be ridiculous to say we need to know X in order to believe. IF something does happen which convinces us, that is different. You arrogantly assume we need something you have. For years, you have claimed we do not understand what god is while never explaining. Either explain it or stop.
While I am willing to listen, probably the only thing that would convince me that any god exists is for 1 to get up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself. That is also the only way you can know a god exists. IF an omnipotent god exists, why is it hiding??? Is it afraid of me?

Wikipedia says the same things I did, only in slightly different words. The very 1st, as you quoted, is no belief in deities. Somehow you twist it to fit your belief.

<>

 

I've made no such assumption James.
I'm using standard dictionary definitions without additional spin.
Are you saying these definitions are wrong?

Atheism:

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

That is an acceptable perspective, but it is an atheist perspective. The problem is, there is the other perspective.

"Disbelief" means what it means, James. Are you saying that it doesn't mean what it means?

In this case, it is not my idea. It is based on unadulterated definitions of the term "atheism". The implication does not need to come from me.

Not as far as I can tell. Why?

That is an atheist expression.
If 10 people were born without the ability to taste, debated 10 people who were born with taste, the people without taste could make the same above, observation. But it would be purely one-sided, just as yous is.

How can they?
How can a person without taste know what they mean when they talk about the tastes of curry and chips? They could argue that such a phenomenon does not exist, because there is nothing that convinces them of it.

That does mean you know, what God is, or, or what awareness of God is. It means you can hear or read about God, and explain what you think God is, according to what you have read, and comprehended.

Again, this is an atheist perspective. I do accept your perspective, and agree with it. But only as an atheist one. I also have another perspective, which is entirely absent from yours.

Jan.

 

Just type "atheism" into Google and you will find I have not edited it. Also type "disbelief" and "lack" into Google, and you will find no hint of editing on my part.

I assure you I haven't cherry-picked.

Personally, I agree with you. But it is the reality of what that means, that you seem to have issue with.

That's what I think. But within the whole, the uniting of both perspectives, "lack" is appropriate.

The thing is, we don't really need God to be explained to us, in order to accept or believe in God,. We don't need scriptures or religion to either. Those things can serve as a means of understanding God.

So why would you assert that I am not aware of God, as you are not?

Jan.

 

Yes.

Because awareness is not infallible. We can be aware of things that don't exist, like dragons.

 

We can also be aware of existence, so you're really offering nothing.

Jan.

 

But you did cherry-pick from the definitions offered so as to suit your agenda.
Disbelief, from wiktionary:

1. Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
   She cried out in disbelief on hearing that terrorists had crashed an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York City.
2. Astonishment.
   I stared in disbelief at the Grand Canyon.
3. The loss or abandonment of a belief; cessation of belief.

Even if you type Disbelief into Google, as you have suggested, then you find that, despite your claims to the contrary, you have edited the definition - through omission of alternatives.
Hence the accusation of cherry-picking.
I guess you disbelieve that you were indeed cherry-picking, don't you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To wit:
disbelief
dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun
noun: disbelief
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms:incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief, lack of credence, lack of conviction, scepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, questioning, cynicism, suspicion, distrust, mistrust, wariness, chariness;More
bewilderment, bafflement, surprise, shock, stupefaction, confusion, perplexity
"she stared at him in disbelief"
antonyms:belief, credence

lack of faith.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms:atheism, unbelief, godlessness, ungodliness, impiety, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"

Thus you have clearly omitted the notion that disbelief is "lack of faith".
Note that with this definition there is no requirement that the faith that is lacked be in something that is true or real.

The practical is by necessity a digital position: you either act as though God exists or you act as though God does not exist.
The intellectual position allows for the entire spectrum between certainty of existence to certainty of non-existence, including the position of it being unknown.
If you only deliberately look at the practical position you are deliberately ignoring what the person says and argues and instead go only with how it manifests.
And when the manifestation is a digital proposition you might therefore get a distorted view of their position.
It is like when you vote in an election when there are only 2 parties - you can either vote for one of them (call them A and B) or you can not vote, or you can deliberately spoil your paper.
But if you vote for A does that mean that you agree with everything that A stands for?
Your practical position is that you agree with them.
Your intellectual position is that probably they offer the best alternative from the choices.
If you only judge someone's intellectual position by their practical then, as exampled, you will misunderstand them.

No, I just don't cherry-pick but apply the one that is clearly relevant - you know, the one about faith.

This is another issue with your argument: you think that only those that believe in God can know God.
And thus if you don't believe in God you can not know God.
Because to know God is to believe in God.
It is a circular argument, Jan.

Yes, one option does:
3) God does not exist and the theist is simply mistaken in the way they interpret their experiences and belief,...

Just as a claimed awareness of sun-eating dragons would be a mistaken interpretation of the person's experiences... - and I'll leave you to join the dots.

You insult the agnostic atheist position by asserting through implication that they know God exists but willfully choose to reject the reality of it.
You do this through your claim of that "lack of belief" implies that the belief is in something real.
You do it through your application of "disbelief" to mean that it is the rejection of something true or real, rather than apply the more apt definition (that you willfully ignored) that it is simply the lack of faith.

Whether you consider what you do insulting or not, it is.
And you don't get to choose what others find insulting.

Yes.