If atheists and non-atheists make up the whole, then the second belief that all atheists hold in common would have to be a belief not shared by non-atheists.
For example, I believe that if I stop breathing I will die.

I could be wrong. :-)

(May 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Not everyone will agree with that. Just because I don't believe something for which there is no unambiguous evidence doesn't mean I must endorse your statement. If I recognize that I myself hold beliefs which are in the same boat, I'm in no position to argue that those who believe what I do not are wrong.

I say that makes you an agnostic. Actual atheism takes the further step of claiming that religious beliefs are wrong.

Lots of atheists are agnostic. I still don't believe in any gods and frankly find the ideas of 'first movers' and 'divine everything from nothing' border on incoherence. But I also have a deep respect for the autonomy of others and a theory of self and mind which allows for a wide variety of expression - including your own.

(May 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I say that makes you an agnostic. Actual atheism takes the further step of claiming that religious beliefs are wrong.

Chad, this comment irritates me. I know you know enough to understand why the above definition of atheism is wrong; I and others have picked you up on this before. Also you know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive because they regard different questions: one on knowledge, the other on belief. I could assume that yours is a deliberate mischaracterisation for some nefarious purpose but instead I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply explain again...

Atheism is not 'the claim that religious beliefs are wrong', rather it's simply an absence of belief in god/s. Anti-theists/strong atheists/gnostic atheists may claim that religious beliefs are wrong however it's inaccurate to assume that this definition applies to all atheists. In fact, the majority of atheists (certainly, on this forum) are agnostic atheists: they make no claim to know, for sure, that there is/are no god/s but they don't believe in any.

I trust this is the final time we have to have this conversation.

Nope, there's some kind of obscure bias inherent to theism that suggests every alternative to religious belief must be another religious belief, or at very least "a belief system."

Why exactly this is, I'll never understand. Either the fully indoctrinated theist wants to dismiss the atheist/agnostic as easily as they do the believers of other faiths, or cannot fathom not having a set system of beliefs to follow.

(May 6, 2014 at 5:21 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

---

Nope, there's some kind of obscure bias inherent to theism that suggests every alternative to religious belief must be another religious belief, or at very least "a belief system."

Why exactly this is, I'll never understand. Either the fully indoctrinated theist wants to dismiss the atheist/agnostic as easily as they do the believers of other faiths, or cannot fathom not having a set system of beliefs to follow.

---

Indeed. Also, to me, it smacks of the childish accusation of hypocrisy: 'You're just as bad as us!'. Firstly, anyone who says that is admitting that they're at fault and secondly the accuser looks like an idiot to their opponent and any audience. I hope to save Chad some face with my comment. I guess we'll just have to see.

(May 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm)whateverist Wrote: Not everyone will agree with that. Just because I don't believe something for which there is no unambiguous evidence doesn't mean I must endorse your statement. If I recognize that I myself hold beliefs which are in the same boat, I'm in no position to argue that those who believe what I do not are wrong.

I say that makes you an agnostic. Actual atheism takes the further step of claiming that religious beliefs are wrong.

One more time: no.

Actual atheism says that religious beliefs are unsupported b y any evidence and are not accepted as true.

(May 6, 2014 at 6:07 am)Chas Wrote: Actual atheism says that religious beliefs are unsupported by any evidence and are not accepted as true.

Sorry to be pedantic here Chas but the bit I emboldened is irrelevant to atheism: it doesn't matter why you're atheistic, only that there's an absence of theism. It might be that you don't believe in god/s because Alfred, your invisible talking platypus, whispers things in your ear. The reasons why are strictly down to your individual belief/value systems.

(May 6, 2014 at 5:09 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Atheism is not 'the claim that religious beliefs are wrong', rather it's simply an absence of belief in god/s. Anti-theists/strong atheists/gnostic atheists may claim that religious beliefs are wrong however it's inaccurate to assume that this definition applies to all atheists. In fact, the majority of atheists (certainly, on this forum) are agnostic atheists: they make no claim to know, for sure, that there is/are no god/s but they don't believe in any.

I'm only partially agnostic. There are certain god claims that we could expect evidence for. The absence of evidence suggests that they are false. Adding further assumptions to the god claim can make it untestable, but I would apply a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to claims that ask me to assume too much. Hence I consider it false even though it's untestable.

(May 6, 2014 at 8:44 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 6, 2014 at 6:07 am)Chas Wrote: Actual atheism says that religious beliefs are unsupported by any evidence and are not accepted as true.

Sorry to be pedantic here Chas but the bit I emboldened is irrelevant to atheism: it doesn't matter why you're atheistic, only that there's an absence of theism. It might be that you don't believe in god/s because Alfred, your invisible talking platypus, whispers things in your ear. The reasons why are strictly down to your individual belief/value systems.

Possibly, but I am referring to people who actually think and trying to counter Hanging Chad's repeated mistakes.

Perhaps, the atheist members would understand this frustration if Christians demanded denominational specificity. Do Frodo, Drich, GodsChild, Rondee, or I insist that everyone define Christianity as merely the belief that “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior?” We share that essential belief, even if we disagree on particulars.

Sure, narrowly targeted terms like, antitheism, agnostic, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism may be more accurate, but many times I feel I must avoid the word ‘atheists’ and write ontological naturalists, physical monists, or materialists just to make a point about something 90% of you believe anyway. It’s awkward. Think about how frustrating it would be for atheist members if the Christians constantly objected to the use of the word ‘Christian’ as shorthand for the specific doctrines an atheist wanted to critique.

Even still, I have to say that a small number of prominent atheists take advantage of the words ambiguity purely for debate.(If the shoe fits, wear it!) In one thread these sophists will take clearly antitheistic stances and on another thread retreat into agnostic atheism to avoid a critique that clearly applies to their brand of atheism. And that should piss off everyone, atheist and believer alike.