What is Your Approach?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Locke,

First off, welcome! I hope to have some productive exchanges with you in the future. To me, theists make this place more fun than it would be without them! That being said let me offer a couple of things to keep in mind when talking to some of us.

First, saying things like "evidence for Atheism" is an incoherent statement. It is completely nonsensical. A lack in belief of a god (Atheism) is not something that can be proven. It's the inherent, opposite position. It is the product of Theism. There are TONS of threads on here explaining it to death. It would be greatly appreciated if you would take a moment to sift through one to make sure you have the right interpretation of an individual’s position so as not to come across as though you think your interpretation of Atheism is the one in question. Just as there seem to be countless brands of Christianity, there are different versions of Atheism. Atheism, to me, and many others, is nothing more than a negative position. Theists believe in at least one God. An Atheist does not hold a belief in any God(s). I don't make the claim that Gods don't exist. To do so, would suggest that I have some knowledge of God(s), and that I can show that they don't exist. To me, that does not appear to be possible.

To say that I am agnostic toward the possibility of a God(s) existence denotes my lack of knowledge pertaining to such things. I don't qualify my lack of belief in God with terms such as Agnostic, which denote KNOWLEDGE. I feel like that part goes without saying. After all, if I had knowledge of Gods at all, it would be quite absurd to say that I'm an Atheist. I am an Atheist that understands that there is much I don't know, however, with regards to the things I hold as true, the existence of God(s) is not among the list. You are an Atheist when it comes to any number of the countless other Gods that mankind has conjured; we just go one God further than you. I won't ask you to disprove Shiva before recognizing your lack of belief in her, please give us the same courtesy with regards to our position towards the Christian God.

Secondly, saying that you have not heard any evidence to disprove your God, does not give it any more credence. To emphasize this point, consider the Shiva comparison above. One need not disprove something before they are justified in not adopting a belief in it. The lack of evidence in support of it is a perfectly acceptable reason not to believe it. It is you that holds the burden of proof pertaining to the validity of the God you affirm. It is not the other way around.

I hope you will consider this advice as it will make things run much easier. You can save yourself a lot of time by not telling Atheists what Atheism is, and just skip forward to defending your claims. Again, Welcome to AF!!! See ya around.

[bennyboy]

You are an Atheist when it comes to any number of the countless other Gods that mankind has conjured; we just go one God further than you. I won't ask you to disprove Shiva before recognizing your lack of belief in him, please give us the same courtesy with regards to our position towards the Christian God.

And remember, Locke, my beagle is an atheist, too, because he lacks a belief in any God/gods. Thank God for that, because if God is real, poor Victor is going to hell for what he was doing to my pillow this morning!

[JesusHChrist]

Jesus fucking tits!

I see my reputation proceeds me.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You are an Atheist when it comes to any number of the countless other Gods that mankind has conjured; we just go one God further than you. I won't ask you to disprove Shiva before recognizing your lack of belief in him, please give us the same courtesy with regards to our position towards the Christian God.

And remember, Locke, my beagle is an atheist, too, because he lacks a belief in any God/gods. Thank God for that, because if God is real, poor Victor is going to hell for what he was doing to my pillow this morning!

Actually, the suffix (-ist) denotes a person. Plus, everyone knows that all dogs go to heaven anyway.

---

-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

Dictionary.com

[Faith No More]

If that's the best argument, then why be gun-ho about Atheism either? Along that line of thinking, wouldn't it be equally incorrect? Why not just be Agnostic?

Others have already addressed this issue, but since it appears(I say "appears" because many before you have feigned interest in order to proselytize) that you honestly are interested in hearing the other side of the debate, I felt I would add my $0.02.

By the wording you have used in the section I have quoted it seems that you share the common misbelief that atheism is the stance that god does not exist, when, in fact, it is the position that the burden of proof that lies with those that claim god does exist has not been met. So, the term "atheist" does not denote the claim that a person makes about the existence of god, merely that it does not accept the claim that god does exist. Some atheists do claim that god does not exist, and those atheists are labeled "gnostic atheists," while that stake no claim are labeled "agnostic atheists." The majority of atheists I have encountered(so what appears to be a majority) are of the agnostic variety.

The big problem I have discovered, however, is that many theists take the agnostic atheist postion as one of intellectual cowardice when it is actually a position of intellectual honesty. They believe that it is an attempt to avoid having to defend any claims when it is actually the position that we don't have enough clear evidence make any claims in the first place. For some reason, many theists think that we must draw a conlcusion on god's existence based on the evidence before us, but these people need to realize that the conclusion drawn by agnostic atheists is that the evidence is insufficient.

[Locke]

Historical evidence becomes less and less accurate the further you go in the past.

This is not a bad statement, but there is a science to preserving historical evidence, and to verifying if evidence has been preserved properly. For manuscripts, this is known as textual criticism.
While it can be argued theory that the Bible would become less reliable in enough time, we still have enough right now that it is reliable, and that problem has now been circumnavigated by modern technology. If you wish to know more I can give you sources that are more reliable than I, and more credible.

---

Others have already addressed this issue, but since it appears(I say "appears" because many before you have feigned interest in order to proselytize) that you honestly are interested in hearing the other side of the debate, I felt I would add my $0.02.

By the wording you have used in the section I have quoted it seems that you share the common misbelief that atheism is the stance that god does not exist, when, in fact, it is the position that the burden of proof that lies with those that claim god does exist has not been met. So, the term "atheist" does not denote the claim that a person makes about the existence of god, merely that it does not accept the claim that god does exist. Some atheists do claim that god does not exist, and those atheists are labeled "gnostic atheists," while that stake no claim are labeled "agnostic atheists." The majority of atheists I have encountered(so what appears to be a majority) are of the agnostic variety.

The big problem I have discovered, however, is that many theists take the agnostic atheist postion as one of intellectual cowardice when it is actually a position of intellectual honesty. They believe that it is an attempt to avoid having to defend any claims when it is actually the position that we don't have enough clear evidence make any claims in the first place. For some reason, many theists think that we must draw a conlcusion on god's existence based on the evidence before us, but these people need to realize that the conclusion drawn by agnostic atheists is that the evidence is insufficient.

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category. As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

[CleanShavenJesus]

Historical evidence becomes less and less accurate the further you go in the past.

This is not a bad statement, but there is a science to preserving historical evidence, and to verifying if evidence has been preserved properly. For manuscripts, this is known as textual criticism.
While it can be argued theory that the Bible would become less reliable in enough time, we still have enough right now that it is reliable, and that problem has now been circumnavigated by modern technology. If you wish to know more I can give you sources that are more reliable than I, and more credible.

Reliable for what? To be used as historical evidence? Not a chance.

[The Reality Salesman01]

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category.

Agnostic refers only to knowledge. Belief is a subset of knowledge. If you told me your favorite color was blue. I don't have to believe you. You can't prove it, but that alone isn't enough for me to make the claim that I know you are lying. I don't care enough to form a belief either way. I would be agnostic with regards to your color preference, and at the same time, have zero beliefs on the claim you make regarding them, one way or the other. You're creating a false dillemma by suggesting one must either:

Claim God is real
Claim God is false

There are alternatives you are ignoring here...don't you see?

It is the belief that there is no God.

Do you find it easier to tell people what there position is before engaging a conversation with them? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the person what their views are, and then discuss that?

This isn't complicated stuff..

You are making it complicated stuff...

[Rahul]

The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

No it is a LACK of a belief in a god.

Not the belief that there is no god.

[CleanShavenJesus]

The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Consulting a dictionary from time to time never hurt anyone.

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity

However, I do not see the big deal with the different definitions of atheism. Regardless of whether it's a belief or lack of belief, really made no difference to me.