If I were an Atheist

[downbeatplumb]

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?

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[Cyberman]

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.

[robvalue]

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!"

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[Hatshepsut]

[robvalue]

[AdamLOV]

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?

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.

---

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.

[robvalue]

[Hatshepsut]

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.