[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And I maintain the your atheism is precisely the same as that of a bicycle.

OK, if it were true that atheism in a thinking person is a lack and nothing but a lack, then what you say would be true.

So you have persuaded me that atheism in thinking adults is not merely a lack.

Atheism in thinking adults consists of beliefs. These beliefs will vary based on the contingencies of what they've heard, but they will include things like:

~ The claims made by religious people are not persuasive.

~ The holy texts are not true.

These beliefs may or not be provable, depending on which religious claims we're talking about, but they are beliefs, in that they are things we hold to be true.

Atheism in thinking adults is comprised of beliefs.

Let’s try a hypothetical.

Joe is an engineer. He got very good marks at university, and was able to secure an entry-level job. After ten years or so, Joe has risen to become a project supervisor. He is widely respected by his colleagues for his intelligence, practicality and efficiency.

While not creating marvels of modern engineering, Joe enjoys literature and history, among other subjects. He is well enough read to be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics - art, music, The Seven Years’ War, South African politics and many others. He is, by any reasonable definition, a ‘thinking person’.

However, through some wildly improbable series of events, Joe is thoroughly ignorant of arguments pertaining to religion. He’s never studied or considered them, never argued on behalf of atheism, and never even looked up at the night sky and wondered, ‘What’s it all about?’

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

[Belacqua]

OK, if it were true that atheism in a thinking person is a lack and nothing but a lack, then what you say would be true.

So you have persuaded me that atheism in thinking adults is not merely a lack.

Atheism in thinking adults consists of beliefs. These beliefs will vary based on the contingencies of what they've heard, but they will include things like:

~ The claims made by religious people are not persuasive.

~ The holy texts are not true.

These beliefs may or not be provable, depending on which religious claims we're talking about, but they are beliefs, in that they are things we hold to be true.

Atheism in thinking adults is comprised of beliefs.

Let’s try a hypothetical.

Joe is an engineer. He got very good marks at university, and was able to secure an entry-level job. After ten years or so, Joe has risen to become a project supervisor. He is widely respected by his colleagues for his intelligence, practicality and efficiency.

While not creating marvels of modern engineering, Joe enjoys literature and history, among other subjects. He is well enough read to be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics - art, music, The Seven Years’ War, South African politics and many others. He is, by any reasonable definition, a ‘thinking person’.

However, through some wildly improbable series of events, Joe is thoroughly ignorant of arguments pertaining to religion. He’s never studied or considered them, never argued on behalf of atheism, and never even looked up at the night sky and wondered, ‘What’s it all about?’

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

I suppose that if such a person existed, we could say he is an atheist in the same trivial sense that a baby is an atheist.

However such a person does not and could not exist in human society. So if we want to limit ourselves to the real world, all thinking people have heard religious claims.

[The Architect Of Fate]

However such a person does not and could not exist in human society. So if we want to limit ourselves to the real world, all thinking people have heard religious claims.

Weather they heard the claims or not is irrelevant

[Mr.wizard]

However such a person does not and could not exist in human society. So if we want to limit ourselves to the real world, all thinking people have heard religious claims.

Weather they heard the claims or not is irrelevant

Usually spelling and grammar don't bother me because i'm terrible at both myself but you have to stop mixing up "Weather" and "Whether".

[The Grand Nudger]

Most theists already live in this state. Literally having not heard the arguments™ of all the religions they don't believe in.

Hearing a religious claim and hearing the specific claims of theism or even more specifically..a given theism...and even more specifically, a given sect of a given theism...are not the same thing.

This is yet another example of your consistently sloppy use of terms compounding the initial misapprehension, Bel. Atheists don't reject religion...most atheists are religious. The only thing that no atheist accepts or believes in, are gods. Not theistic gods, not deistic gods. Not gods otherwise classified. The contents of the specific claims you have in mind are irrelevant to me and many others - because we don't believe in gods.

We're almost at the suess level of comprehension, here. Gods in a house? No. Gods with a mouse? No. Gods I've never even heard about? No. At some point it would be more interesting for you to explain why you insist on getting this relatively simple concept wrong.

[Belacqua]

It makes no difference how you reached your state of disbelief in a god, you can be an atheist for good reasons, bad reasons or no reason at all, the only requirement for being an Atheist is not believing in a god.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe. 

Nonetheless, people in society don't reach their mental states independently of that society. When we're talking about thinking people who have heard and rejected religious claims, there are things we can say about such people.

---

Humans do not want accept that when we make claims of God/gods/dieities/super natural, all we are really doing as a species is projecting our own image, qualities, fears, narcissism, in a mirror. Much like a dog or cat will mistake it's reflection in a mirror as a rival.

Yes, that's a reasonable argument.

But as far as "aliens" sorry. I can agree other intelligent life exists in a universe of trillions of galaxies. But outside of communication, time and distance and the physical energy to overcome those distances to see other life person to person, is out of reach. 

In the face of challenging old religion and old mythology, I warn those not to replace old mythology with si fi mythology. 

You're right. I don't intend to make any claims about aliens, and I certainly don't expect them to behave the way they do in Star Trek or something. 

I only brought them up to say that there is a possibility there could be living creatures who understand the world better than humans can. Beyond that theoretical possibility, I won't make any claims.

---

Usually spelling and grammar don't bother me because i'm terrible at both myself but you have to stop mixing up "Weather" and "Whether".

Both Gaebonics and Sungulese seem to be minority atheist dialects. 

They may be just another way to give the finger to their interlocutors -- by showing they don't care enough to write correctly.

[Brian37]

Let’s try a hypothetical.

Joe is an engineer. He got very good marks at university, and was able to secure an entry-level job. After ten years or so, Joe has risen to become a project supervisor. He is widely respected by his colleagues for his intelligence, practicality and efficiency.

While not creating marvels of modern engineering, Joe enjoys literature and history, among other subjects. He is well enough read to be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics - art, music, The Seven Years’ War, South African politics and many others. He is, by any reasonable definition, a ‘thinking person’.

However, through some wildly improbable series of events, Joe is thoroughly ignorant of arguments pertaining to religion. He’s never studied or considered them, never argued on behalf of atheism, and never even looked up at the night sky and wondered, ‘What’s it all about?’

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

I suppose that if such a person existed, we could say he is an atheist in the same trivial sense that a baby is an atheist.

However such a person does not and could not exist in human society. So if we want to limit ourselves to the real world, all thinking people have heard religious claims.

"All thinking people" have heard religious claims. But that does not make the word "atheist" a dogma, religion or political party.

"Atheist" merely means "off" on claims of God/god/s/deities, nothing more.

It says nothing about the education of the person ascribing the label to themselves or their views on any topic. 

I have run into atheists who voted for Trump, others who think Che, the asshole who lead to Castro's Cuba was a good thing. And while I like Penn Jillette on social issues, he is unfortunately a "no Government is better" economically.  And I absolutely hate Ayn Rand. 

Point is, you cant pigeonhole any label.

[Belacqua]

"All thinking people" have heard religious claims. But that does not make the word "atheist" a dogma, religion or political party.

"Atheist" merely means "off" on claims of God/god/s/deities, nothing more.

That's right. I would never say that atheism per se constitutes a religion, dogma, etc. 

It says nothing about the education of the person ascribing the label to themselves or their views on any topic. 

Maybe it only tells us that something about the society they live in gives them the tools to reject religious claims. But that's pretty general. 

I have run into atheists who voted for Trump, others who think Che, the asshole who lead to Castro's Cuba was a good thing. And while I like Penn Jillette on social issues, he is unfortunately a "no Government is better" economically.  And I absolutely hate Ayn Rand. 

Point is, you cant pigeonhole any label.

This is certainly true.

In John Gray's book Seven Types of Atheism, he describes at length some of the different schools of thought that have led to atheism in history, and the different conclusions people have drawn from their opinion that God isn't real. 

As an example, he describes how certain "new atheists" write as if when belief in God will go away we will be left with a liberal society that embraces science. Not all atheists think this way, of course, but it's been something we've seen in the media. 

You're right that people who hear and reject religious claims may do so for any number of reasons, and may end up with any number of conclusions.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

Joe is an agnostic, because he as expressed no preference.

---

Point is, you cant pigeonhole any label.

No, the point is that the definitions are inaccurate, because there is no reliable knowledge classification system to correctly pigeonhole the terms (labels, descriptions) with the succinctly differing definitions. As it is, cultures are allowed to shift the definitions; and for some reason, atheist, believe that is acceptable; except in the case of definition of atheism and theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Agnosticism concerns what one knows, not what one believes. Many atheists are agnostic, most, if you counted here. Most theists are agnostic too.

From the other end, most atheists and theists are unaware of the arguments (or even the existence) of a wide range of specific god claims, a great many of which are theistic claims. This does not make them agnostics about any of them.

If a person categorically rejects any god containing system - the contents of those claims are irrelevant.

If a person categorically accepts only one specific god claim - the contents of the others and the fact that they also contain gods are, likewise, irrelevant.

The only context in which agnosticism could be applied as you've used it, is when a person literally does not know what they themselves believe...not when they don't know what others believe.

ala

Do you believe in gods? I don't know whether I believe in gods.