Atheism is the punk rock of religion

[fr0d0]

Likewise an atheist then has to be distinguished from apathist, agnostic, etc etc... or do they?

No, deist is a subset of theist.

[Whateverist]

Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.

But do you really think that is true? Most Christians I meet express much more belief in the bible than they do a deity. Given the primacy of my agnosticism, I have no problem with anyone else believing in a deity. Their call. But the jump from that to "..and this book, the bible, is divinely inspired and so conveys the will of God" is one even my agnosticism can't allow.

Your essential hunch/belief that a personal god (or deity of whatever stripe you please) exists is neither required nor ruled out by evidence. So it is your call to make. But claims made about a book we can hold in our hand, which was transcribed by the hand of man (inspired or not), and which has a history .. those require evidence. The bible should be subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism and interpretation as any other book. That is a leap too far for me.

[Reforged]

Are you really this stupid Raphael? lol

Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.

This is in direct contrast to your own assertion that atheists have no other beliefs than disbelief in a deity.

I really can't make this any simpler for you.

Er... *no*. No that was not my question and I challenge you to quote the part where I ask that question. If you can't I don't think have any place calling anyone stupid.

My assertion was, and I quote; "We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does." I'm not saying what you seem to think I am unless you count your deity as one of the things without proof, in which case who am I to argue?

My question was much, much simpler. I could probably put two boxes underneath it saying "yes" and "no" and it wouldn't look out of place.
Thats how simple this question is. I'm not sure how you managed to twist it in your mind to that but whatever.
Lets try this again;
"Your theology is Christianity, your position is therefore Yahweh exists and the Bible is true to the letter. Do you deny this?"

[fr0d0]

Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.

But do you really think that is true? Most Christians I meet express much more belief in the bible than they do a deity. Given the primacy of my agnosticism, I have no problem with anyone else believing in a deity. Their call. But the jump from that to "..and this book, the bible, is divinely inspired and so conveys the will of God" is one even my agnosticism can't allow.

Your essential hunch/belief that a personal god (or deity of whatever stripe you please) exists is neither required nor ruled out by evidence. So it is your call to make. But claims made about a book we can hold in our hand, which was transcribed by the hand of man (inspired or not), and which has a history .. those require evidence. The bible should be subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism and interpretation as any other book. That is a leap too far for me.

Christians are to theism as (pick any, but eg) Bhuddists are to atheism. We're not talking about Christianity here.

Belief in said deity to me as a Christian is originally informed by the bible. How isn't the bible subject to the same scrutiny as any, and more so than most I'd propose?

"Hunch" is you disregarding my explanation above. Existence isn't the question. Belief through faith is.

But this is way off topic.

[Reforged]

But do you really think that is true? Most Christians I meet express much more belief in the bible than they do a deity. Given the primacy of my agnosticism, I have no problem with anyone else believing in a deity. Their call. But the jump from that to "..and this book, the bible, is divinely inspired and so conveys the will of God" is one even my agnosticism can't allow.

Your essential hunch/belief that a personal god (or deity of whatever stripe you please) exists is neither required nor ruled out by evidence. So it is your call to make. But claims made about a book we can hold in our hand, which was transcribed by the hand of man (inspired or not), and which has a history .. those require evidence. The bible should be subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism and interpretation as any other book. That is a leap too far for me.

Christians are to theism as (pick any, but eg) Bhuddists are to atheism. We're not talking about Christianity here.

Belief in said deity to me as a Christian is originally informed by the bible. How isn't the bible subject to the same scrutiny as any, and more so than most I'd propose?

"Hunch" is you disregarding my explanation above. Existence isn't the question. Belief through faith is.

But this is way off topic.

"Belief in said deity to me as a Christian is originally informed by the bible."
Finally, was that so hard?

Right but Atheists don't believe in anything supernatural without proof.
Its no more a religious position than not believing in snake oils medicinal properties because theres no proof it does.
That was my point and my question was to confirm you believed in a separate deity from other religions separate to Christianity.
To follow what you claim is the case you'd have to call every single refusal to acknowledge a deity a religious position. Do you have any idea how many religious positions that would be? How far does this extend? Is not believing in Thor a religious position or simply a sensible one?
Is it a religious position to not believe in theism as a whole or simply no position for lack of proof?
The reason we don't shove another God or theology down your throat is because we don't have one, we're atheists and therefore have not made our decision on our position based on religious grounds. We have based it purely on logic, reasoning and evidence. Not faith which is a prerequisite to being a theist.

Based on this I would say Atheism is not a religious position, it is simply a position demanding of concrete evidence regardless of the claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right but Atheists don't believe in anything supernatural without proof.

Atheists can and do believe in all manner of supernatural things while simultaneously remaining atheists. They probably didn't get your memo.

[jonb]

Atheists can and do believe in all manner of supernatural things while simultaneously remaining atheists. They probably didn't get your memo.

Also what is, or is not supernatural? I could be believing in the supernatural without realising.

[Whateverist]

Your essential hunch/belief that a personal god (or deity of whatever stripe you please) exists is neither required nor ruled out by evidence. So it is your call to make. But claims made about a book we can hold in our hand, which was transcribed by the hand of man (inspired or not), and which has a history .. those require evidence. The bible should be subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism and interpretation as any other book. That is a leap too far for me.

Christians are to theism as (pick any, but eg) Bhuddists are to atheism. We're not talking about Christianity here.

Belief in said deity to me as a Christian is originally informed by the bible. How isn't the bible subject to the same scrutiny as any, and more so than most I'd propose?

"Hunch" is you disregarding my explanation above. Existence isn't the question. Belief through faith is.

Well it wasn't my intention to disregard your explanation. I'm afraid I haven't kept up with this entire thread. I'm frankly not exactly sure what explanation you mean but if you could tell which post I'd be happy to go back and read it.

So you only mean to be talking about theism broadly and not Christianity? I guess I'd better wait to press you regarding my distinction between a belief in a god vs a belief that a book contains that actual will of a god.

[Reforged]

Right but Atheists don't believe in anything supernatural without proof.

Atheists can and do believe in all manner of supernatural things while simultaneously remaining atheists. They probably didn't get your memo.

If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

[fr0d0]

Well it wasn't my intention to disregard your explanation. I'm afraid I haven't kept up with this entire thread. I'm frankly not exactly sure what explanation you mean but if you could tell which post I'd be happy to go back and read it.

I refer to my post #47 re faith.

So you only mean to be talking about theism broadly and not Christianity? I guess I'd better wait to press you regarding my distinction between a belief in a god vs a belief that a book contains that actual will of a god.

Atheism is a position on God [deity].
Raphael challenges my position that theism mirrors atheism in that it is the opposite to atheism. Raphael insists that theism is more than belief in God [deity].

Talk all you like about anything else. ^ this discussion is entirely pointless.

Atheists can and do believe in all manner of supernatural things while simultaneously remaining atheists. They probably didn't get your memo.

If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

Get with the plan Raphael. Atheism = lack of belief in God. That's it. It's not confusing.

---

There are atheists that disagree with this, but we chase them off with big sticks whenever they show their faces on AF. Hence the knee jerk reaction above to any suggestion that atheists might touch philosophy with a barge pole. You'd have to be thick skinned to carry off that as an atheist around here. Which I would respect.

---

Your personal philosophy I would categorise as materialism. You disregard anything you can't sense/ anything you can establish by thought alone. That is a possible subset of atheism, just as Christianity is a subset of theism.

(Just so's you know Raphael: I have you on ignore. I don't usually get to see what you post. Nor do I usually have the option to unhide your posts unless it's a rare occasion that I'm on my laptop or not viewing the mobile site/s.)