What is Atheism?

[downbeatplumb]

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

My apologies if I have come off as thick.  My posts have been aimed at trying to gain a better understanding of your perspective on matters of theism and atheism.  Could you please elaborate on the part quoted in bold above.  From a theistic perspective, what do you define as something that is 'evident' (obvious, apparent, plain) and can be presented to support an assertion?

something with evidentiary support. Something that can be confirmed scientifically, just like you know everything else that you believe in.

[Cyberman]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

Hey, it's not my fault if you can't support your case. Like I often have to say, evidence is only a problem for someone who has none.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep if you don't think you can talk to me. I'm sure I'll live.

[masterofpuppets]

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

"Evidence" is anything that can objectively demonstrate the truth of a claim, which you have failed to provide. In what way are we using "evidence" in a way that begs the question? You have resorted to a strawman fallacy and are once again refusing to provide the evidence.

In other words, you do not have evidence, so I will not be interested in you providing it from here on.

[Nonpareil]

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven.

No one is using it that way. We are using it as the term is defined: anything that supports your conclusion.

The key word there is "supports", though. Claims don't support anything.

[Mister Agenda]

This means you know shit, and your understanding is shit and you don't have an ounce of credentials for anything.  You have no real thought of our own that can quantify into argument, because you don't have any knowledge of it .  The best you can do is take shit from another Atheist and rehash it.

There's really nothing you could have said to better illustrate that you've no deep understanding of logic or philosophy no matter what credentials you may have. For starters, credentials really are irrelevant to the argument, either your argument can stand on its own merits, or it fails, no matter what letters you may be able to put after your name; and understanding that fact is fundamental to the philosophical endeavor.

A is lacking particular credentials, therefore A is wrong.

The above is a fallacy.

---

  Dodo, I am  not trying to redefine atheism from your English dictionary.  And your English dictionary does not mean shit to other parts of the world. 

That might make a lot more sense if we weren't communicating in English. People who are native speakers of English get to define what words in English mean. If the definition of a word in English in an English dictionary isn't the definition you mean, you're using the wrong word.

---

"I lack belief in god because....(insert reason)"

To give a reason is to express a belief.

If so, that belief is likely not a belief in God. The definition of atheist is not 'has not beliefs whatsoever', so what's your point?

---

How do you define atheism? It may seem simple, but small variations exist in accepted definitions.

Individuals, diverse in politics and class and nationality and exist all over the world. Outside that the only core thing we have in common is "off" or "empty" on deity/god claims. I hate "ism" being attached to the word "atheist". It is to me like trying to accuse and empty glass of having a club. 

An 'ism' can also be a condition or state (albinism, metabolism, etc.). Atheism is the state of not being a believer in a God or gods. Theism is the opposite state. Neither really amounts to the sort of 'ism' that amounts to being in a club (communism, contrarianism, etc.). Frankly, the first question you should get after someone finds out you're an atheist is 'what's your basic philosophy?'. It's like being so incurious that upon finding out someone was a theist, you weren't a bit interested in which religion they identify with, if any. When someone says they're an atheist or theist, they're hardly telling you anything at all about themselves.

---

On the other hand if God exists, then it does have profound significance

Not really the mere fact his exists doesn't make him profound

Depends on which God, eh?

[Whateverist]

Apparently the word atheist means whatever any given self-described atheist says it means, which is that it basically means nothing at all.

Isn't that true for the word "Christian" as well and even more so for the words "true xtian" as used by any self-described Christian?

[Harry Nevis]

Everybody has the right to define atheism in their own terms and does not have to meet your definition from whatever source you happen to use.

No, they don't  Can I define atheism as a sect of Christianity?  Sure, but i would be wrong.

A=none; lack of

theist=a believer in a god.

Atheist=one who lacks a belief in a god.

---

Apparently the words "fact", "evidence" and "truth" means whatever any given self-described christian says it means, which is that it basically means nothing at all.

fixed it for you.

---

"I lack belief in god because....(insert reason)"

To give a reason is to express a belief.

No, it doesn't.

---

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

There is nothing obvious, apparent or plain to support your god theory.

When I use "evidence", I am talking about objective, testable evidence.  And there is none for your god.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I cannot address all the individual points in the flurry of responses, so my apologies in advance to anyone who feels ignored.

Suppose Joe Blow is on trial for murder. It is incumbent on the prosecution show Joe is indeed guilty. The prosecution presents as evidence a bloody garment found in Joe’s car, a witness who says he heard Joe arguing with the victim, and a gun in Joe’s apartment that matches the caliber of the bullet found in the victim’s body. At this point, the defense does not say to the jury, “See! They have no evidence!” Instead the defense must give reasons why the evidence does not support prosecution’s case. Maybe, Joe cut himself in an accident. Maybe the witness isn’t reliable because of dementia. Maybe it wasn’t the same gun as the murder weapon. Unless the defense comes up with plausible reasons to not accept the evidence, the facts of the case will stand in favor of the prosecution.

With respect to the proposition that God exists, lots of evidence has been presented. I will even agree that not all of the evidence supports the conclusion that God exists. For example, I think the design arguments are particularly weak. But it would be silly for me to deny the clear and obvious fact that living systems do indeed appear to be designed. Sure it’s evidence but not evidence that supports the claim.

So if I tell my friend the Good News about Jesus Christ, he may ask me why I believe it. In reply I could perhaps present the ‘minimal facts’ argument about the resurrection. If he says I didn’t convince him that means he obviously harbors some objections to the ‘minimal facts’ - objections I failed to address. It would be dodgy of him, after having heard my schpeel, to pretend like I didn’t give him evidence and that he didn’t have reasons for not believing me. That is why I simply do not buy the whole ‘lack of belief’ story. Sure atheists lack belief, but they are also incredulous. They have objections and those objections are also subject to scrutiny.

[Harry Nevis]

I cannot address all the individual points in the flurry of responses, so my apologies in advance to anyone who feels ignored.

Suppose Joe Blow is on trial for murder. It is incumbent on the prosecution show Joe is indeed guilty. The prosecution presents as evidence a bloody garment found in Joe’s car, a witness who says he heard Joe arguing with the victim, and a gun in Joe’s apartment that matches the caliber of the bullet found in the victim’s body. At this point, the defense does not say to the jury, “See! They have no evidence!” Instead the defense must give reasons why the evidence does not support prosecution’s case. Maybe, Joe cut himself in an accident. Maybe the witness isn’t reliable because of dementia. Maybe it wasn’t the same gun as the murder weapon.  Unless the defense comes up with plausible reasons to not accept the evidence, the facts of the case will stand in favor of the prosecution.

With respect to the proposition that God exists, lots of evidence has been presented. I will even agree that not all of the evidence supports the conclusion that God exists. For example, I think the design arguments are particularly weak. But it would be silly for me to deny the clear and obvious fact that living systems do indeed appear to be designed. Sure it’s evidence but not evidence that supports the claim.

So if I tell my friend the Good News about Jesus Christ, he may ask me why I believe it. In reply I could perhaps present the ‘minimal facts’ argument about the resurrection. If he says I didn’t convince him that means he obviously harbors some objections to the ‘minimal facts’ -  objections I failed to address. It would be dodgy of him, after having heard my schpeel, to pretend like I didn’t give him evidence and that he didn’t have reasons for not believing me. That is why I simply do not buy the whole ‘lack of belief’ story. Sure atheists lack belief, but they are also incredulous. They have objections and those objections are also subject to scrutiny.

We know Joe exists.  BIG difference.

I don't know what "minimal facts" refer to, but there is NOTHING outside the bible to corroborate the resurrection. That's not being dodgy, that's fact.

[Brian37]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

Not familiar with that story, but yea, with religion it is all the same, an apology, and no different when you expose the Vegas "magician" or street con ball and cup or 3 card Monty. It isn't that the people selling this don't believe it, some do, most do with a passion. 

The cons don't care. The deluded who are honestly fooling themselves but don't realize it are the majority. I think the attitude of "I cant be wrong" is a product of evolution. If it seems to work, people fail to understand most of the time why it "works". A false claim, sold in honest belief, if sold successfully enough unfortunately does have a real evolutionary benefit that creates safety in numbers. 

All the world's major religions ARE successful, not because religion itself is a requirement for evolution to occur. They are successful because they "work" based on a false perception that multiple people buy into. When enough of a society buys into the claim, that creates the placebo effect that creates the REAL safety in numbers. 

But yea, no matter the religion, it isn't defended by objective neutrality, testing or peer review.  It takes mental acrobatics which really amounts to trying to convince oneself. Just like after your parents tell you Santa is real before you can formulate adult critical thinking skills, after you have been exposed, the desire of having a friend or a cosmic parent or magic gift giver, once you have bought that, before you have critical thinking skills, your reaction to defend these unfounded claims is based on self preservation unfortunately based on false perceptions.

I wish mere mental acrobatics worked, my mom would still be alive.