(May 3, 2015 at 4:07 am)AdamLOV Wrote: Atheists have belief systems. None of the belief systems atheists have is 'Atheism'. Theists have belief systems. None of the belief systems theists have is 'Theism'. I suppose someone could make a belief system and call it 'Theism', but that would be needlessly confusing, wouldn't it?

Quote:On this point I would beg to differ. As a minimum definition, one could surmize that Atheism means disbelief in the God of monotheism. All right, but this definition would surely be too narrow. Atheists rarely believe in paranormal phenomena or the reality out-of-body experiences (which have, on a side-note, been shown to be cognitive illusions). Therefore one cannot restrict atheism to being merely disbelief in God. It is much more than that. It would be disbelief in general. Following this logic, the more general the scope of one's disbelief, the more "atheist" that person would be. This is hard atheism, as opposed to the soft atheism of, say, Richard Dawkins, who believes in gene determinism and the redemptive  qualities of science.

There is nothing to stop atheists believing in paranormal things or out of body stuff.

A lot don't but it is not required.

A lot of Muslims drive white BMWs but that is not required as part of Islam.

Nope, sorry, anything you add to atheism beyond its definition is what you consider to be the logical consequences. That doesn't make it true. Even if it applies to 99% of atheists, it is still not part of atheism. Even if it applied to 100% all current atheists, it would not be part of it. You could in such a situation say, "Given that all current atheists are also sceptics, then..." but your conclusion would still say nothing about atheism and you may as well just talk about sceptics in the first place.

I understand the frustration of people who want to undermine it somehow because it has nothing to undermine, so they manufacture extra parts they can attack. But it's not valid.

If you want atheism to mean more than it does, then you need to use another word and define what it means. If you mean sceptic, say sceptic. Theists can also claim to be sceptics.

Otherwise, enjoy punching your strawman and we won't take your arguments seriously.

Atheism means 'not theism'. It really is that simple and it baffles me that some people have a problem with this. As a male, I could be described as 'non-female' if necessary. I don't have to be anti-female in order for the definition to qualify - I could be, but it's certainly not a requirement.

Default atheism cannot be wrong, as it makes no claims. I think that winds people up something rotten.

"Give me something I can hit dammit!"

(May 3, 2015 at 8:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Default atheism cannot be wrong, as it makes no claims. I think that winds people up something rotten.

"Give me something I can hit dammit!"

Indeed. It is funny how often the theists try to define atheism into something they can attack.

We have the if you are an atheist then you must believe in A and then argue against A be it the big bang, evolution or souls or whatever.

Or the old, atheism is just another faith so its the same as religions switcheroo which is not the case. It is disagreeing with their beliefs not a statement of ours.

(May 2, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.
[Meier et al 2015] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

Thanks for the quality link. There is undoubtedly a projection effect as there's little reason to suppose the personalities of atheists are any more dominated by anger than is the case with other people. A bit of semantics is involved here: We speak of "the angry white male" in connection with conservative politics, not because we think white men are all habitually angry. The "angry atheist" term is used in a similar vein because in general, organized atheist groups and the organized religious are frequently opponents at law and in political process. Oddly, in Study 3 even atheists appeared to think atheists were angry.

(May 2, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Jericho Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 9:22 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: Science hasn't found a creator, nor looked for one either...

I am sure if you came up with a way we could possibly search for one, they would test it.  Plus, I doubt you can think of any method that hasn't already been thought up or tried...

Indeed. I'm not going to be of help here, and doubt science should go looking for creators just yet. We have no real idea what the observable properties of a creator might be. Still, we should hesitate to stamp it "impossible." 

(May 2, 2015 at 9:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: ...but atheism is not a philosophy (nor is it the sort of noun that ought to be capitalized, but I reckon that's your business), it's a position on one topic.

Oh, Horrors! Did I capitalize it? I could swear I didn't, but a slip of the shift key could have occurred. Which tells me that many atheists have conventions for orthography, i.e. "god" vs. "God." 

(May 2, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Jericho Wrote: I love that argument that theists use that atheism is basically just a religion...I fail to see how atheists can even be thrown into the same category.  We have no religious text, leaders, gathering areas, or anything like that....

Many religions lack a text, leader, or designated meeting place as well, yet are called religions. Some atheists are happy to lump all the religious into a bloc based on the single common denominator of belief in a god; that's a common human habit known as "stereotypy." I'm well aware of the minimum definition for atheism as lack of theistic belief, yet I'm also aware that it's often brought up as a dodge by persons who don't wish their beliefs to come under the microscope. All the better for a secure position from which to snipe at the beliefs of others, I might say. A number of organizations associated with atheism are quite vocal and politically active in the United States and, while we no doubt aren't hearing from many folks who privately have atheist leanings, a coherent public front for atheism has developed in this country. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheist Association, for instance. And media spokes like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. 

(May 3, 2015 at 8:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Default atheism cannot be wrong, as it makes no claims.

"We make no claims" is another of my favorite dodges. If no claims, why a media? Why a forum? Why all the arguments? At minimum atheists must make the claim that belief in deity is unsupported by available evidence. I see nothing wrong with making a claim anyway. Ideally, the claim then stands or falls on its own merits. Where I will differ from most atheists is that I don't think the evaluation of merits for a deity claim should be restricted solely to scientific criteria. Conceptions of god involve more than just what we know about the natural world.

Of course the agenda the Evangelicals advance is so ridiculous I'm not surprised to see atheists ridiculing it. Nor do creationism or Noah's Ark have any place in public schools except as literature. So, I'd rather see atheists making a few claims than none. And while the big bang and neo-Darwinian evolution aren't necessary for atheism, I'd be willing to bet that about 98% of atheists subscribe to both these theories, going as far as to draw existential inspiration from them. Call it a deep human need for love. 

[Many edits sorry! Fucked it up on my ipad]

Why a forum? Because some 70% of people on the planet believe in fairy tales, believe so strong they'll make people miserable over it or even kill over it.

Atheists need support. Can you imagine not being able to tell even your family your most basic beliefs, or lack of, because you may be disowned or even killed?

If people stopped believing fairy tales, we wouldn't need the term atheist at all.

God has not even be coherently defined. As soon as you say it is "supernatural" then science cannot investigate it. Full stop, that's the bottom line. Expecting science to investigate the supernatural is to misunderstand the whole basis of science. I go into detail about this on my website if you are interested.

No, making no claims is not a dodge. It's reserving judgement for such time as evidence appears to make a case for or against God. I'm not required to accept a claim or state belief in the opposite claim, just because it's put to me. I can reject the claim without asserting the opposite. Again, I cover this at length on my website. Being an atheist means I do not believe the claim, that is it. I don't have to state that the claim is false.

I don't have to claim the evidence is unconvincing to me, the evidence is unconvincing to me. I'm not saying it's unconvincing to everyone, that would be ludicrous. My mental state is unconvinced, therefor the evidence is not sufficient for me. I know this because I know my own mental state, hopefully!

A lot of atheists are sceptics, yeah. It's not that surprising, since scepticism leads logically to atheism. But not all atheists get there through the sceptical route. So it's important to decide exactly who it is you are talking about, atheists or sceptics.

Check out this video for why atheists talk about God and religion:

http://youtu.be/xnbXlkNavwo

(May 3, 2015 at 4:14 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 4:07 am)AdamLOV Wrote: Atheists have belief systems. None of the belief systems atheists have is 'Atheism'. Theists have belief systems. None of the belief systems theists have is 'Theism'. I suppose someone could make a belief system and call it 'Theism', but that would be needlessly confusing, wouldn't it?

Quote:On this point I would beg to differ. As a minimum definition, one could surmize that Atheism means disbelief in the God of monotheism. All right, but this definition would surely be too narrow. Atheists rarely believe in paranormal phenomena or the reality out-of-body experiences (which have, on a side-note, been shown to be cognitive illusions). Therefore one cannot restrict atheism to being merely disbelief in God. It is much more than that. It would be disbelief in general. Following this logic, the more general the scope of one's disbelief, the more "atheist" that person would be. This is hard atheism, as opposed to the soft atheism of, say, Richard Dawkins, who believes in gene determinism and the redemptive  qualities of science.

There is nothing to stop atheists believing in paranormal things or out of body stuff.

A lot don't but it is not required.

A lot of Muslims drive white BMWs but that is not required as part of Islam.

The fact that something is not explicitly required from a group does not mean that there are not implicit requirements. What I propose would be that the majority of atheists are expected by their peers to not merely disbelieve in God, but in many other religious-quasi religious constructs, such as ghosts or demons. This in no way entails that every single atheist will not believe in such phenomena. Rather, I am suggesting that we distinguish between hard atheism of the purist variety (generalized disbelief) and more heterogenous forms of atheism (selective disbelief). Now this poses numerous logical questions, for instance, can a religious person who does not believe in a rival religion's deity be considered "atheist"? I think atheism, just like theism, is relative, in the sense that everything depends on what that person believes in. Somebody, say a Christian, may be a disbeliever in relation to Allah, the deity of a rival religion, or dismiss the merits of gay marriage, whereas an Atheist may not believe in Allah or God, yet wholeheartedly believe in scientific rationality or gay marriage. I would argue that the two are not as clearly differentiable from eachother as is commonly supposed. Rather, both may be interpreted as being "soft" atheists. The one who really differs from believers of the first or second or n-th variety would be one who does not believe at all, one who I would call a "hard" atheist.

---

(May 3, 2015 at 4:25 am)robvalue Wrote: Nope, sorry, anything you add to atheism beyond its definition is what you consider to be the logical consequences. That doesn't make it true. Even if it applies to 99% of atheists, it is still not part of atheism. Even if it applied to 100% all current atheists, it would not be part of it. You could in such a situation say, "Given that all current atheists are also sceptics, then..." but your conclusion would still say nothing about atheism and you may as well just talk about sceptics in the first place.

I understand the frustration of people who want to undermine it somehow because it has nothing to undermine, so they manufacture extra parts they can attack. But it's not valid.

If you want atheism to mean more than it does, then you need to use another word and define what it means. If you mean sceptic, say sceptic. Theists can also claim to be sceptics.

Otherwise, enjoy punching your strawman and we won't take your arguments seriously.

This "other word" I would propose is atheism (disbelief) of the "hard" variety I have outlined above.

Yes, we have agnostic and gnostic atheists. These are the terms you describe I think. To assume all atheists are gnostic atheists is a false assumption. Please see my website for much more details

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!agnosti...stic/c1xja

Alternatively you can have strong atheists who believe there is no God, rather than also claiming there is no God. Again, not true by default.

There is no requirement or expectation for atheists to not believe in the supernatural. That is a rule you're making up. What do you even mean they expect it? That's their problem, atheism isn't a club where you need membership permission.

A certain group of atheists may decide they expect it, but atheists in general have no rules. You are conflating scepticism and atheism. If you mean sceptics, say sceptics.

It's better to just ask someone what they believe than tell them or assume it.

(May 3, 2015 at 12:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why a forum? Because some 70% of people on the planet believe in fairy tales, believe so strong they'll make people miserable over it or even kill over it.

Atheists need support. Can you imagine not being able to tell even your family your most basic beliefs, or lack of, because you may be disowned or even killed?

... No, making no claims is not a dodge. ... I can reject the claim without denying it.

"Reject" and "deny" look like synonyms, but I'll take it you mean that you can reject a claim without advancing a counterclaim, which indeed you can do. Not making a claim is not itself a dodge. The duck dips when someone in fact is making a claim but denies doing so. I can't say about you in particular, but I do see this frequently. On the field of fantastic flowers, I'm afraid I would wilt of terminal boredom were there no fairy tales; however I promise I won't kill anyone over it.  

All people need support. The despicable phenomenon where mothers and fathers turn away from their children, or vice-versa, over religion or politics is unfortunately too common. In Utah there's a support group for disowned offspring of Mormon households. Though it's less common among Mormons than it was 40 years ago. And, as with O'Hair's disinheriting her own son for conversion to Christ, it can occasionally go the other direction as well. I don't assert that having this forum is wrong, only that a forum without claims seems improbable.