[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[The Grand Nudger]

The mere existence of people who have never believed in gods leaves no room for your conjecture about what is and isn't possible to be true.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current definitions, the only two people amongst this entire site of atheists who seem to have a problem with the definitions are the two of you. The current definitions are simple short and accepted by almost every atheist I have ever talked to. The definitions are not even the important part of the god discussion, it's the concepts that are important.

I don't think the current definitions are a problem either. There are at least two, and we have to figure out which one a person is using when we read his statement. David Mitchell uses it one way, you use it another. No problem.

---

"atheism," is inaccurately defined as simply lack of belief.

I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain. 

To insist on this definition, it seems to me, is to deny what is really going on.

People have a web of beliefs (=things they hold to be true). This web of beliefs may well exclude the belief that God exists. For thinking people, however, the exclusion is made possible by the other beliefs that they hold. It is a lack, but a lack that is maintained by believing other things. 

So for example, someone hears the claim that God made the world in six days. This is easy to dismiss, because we have many other beliefs about the history of the earth that are better attested. We lack the belief that God made the world in six days, because we have better beliefs. 

We reject the claims of religious people because we have other beliefs that we hold to. These are likely to include beliefs like, "revelation is not a good source of information," or "science works and science is incompatible with God." Things like that. 

I am not talking about the history of how a person becomes an atheist. This is not a temporal process, but a simultaneous web in which we hold our beliefs. The commitment that science is better than revelation maintains the belief that we can reject the claims of religious peopl

Please explain this response, Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Maybe I am reading this wrong but do you think Atheism is lacking beliefs entirely?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain. 

Then your wrong because hey can 

To insist on this definition, it seems to me, is to deny what is really going on.

Or not 

People have a web of beliefs (=things they hold to be true). This web of beliefs may well exclude the belief that God exists. For thinking people, however, the exclusion is made possible by the other beliefs that they hold. It is a lack, but a lack that is maintained by believing other things. 

No we can hold a web of beliefs that excludes unwarranted claims other people make because they are unwarranted 

So for example, someone hears the claim that God made the world in six days. This is easy to dismiss, because we have many other beliefs about the history of the earth that are better attested. We lack the belief that God made the world in six days, because we have better beliefs. 

No even if we had no better knowledge the claim God made the world in six days is a claim they can't back up so we can reject it on that alone .

We reject the claims of religious people because we have other beliefs that we hold to. These are likely to include beliefs like, "revelation is not a good source of information," or "science works and science is incompatible with God." Things like that. 

We reject it because theists can' back it up .Nothing more nothing less 

I am not talking about the history of how a person becomes an atheist. This is not a temporal process, but a simultaneous web in which we hold our beliefs. The commitment that science is better than revelation on maintains the belief that we can reject the claims of religious people

An atheist could reject science and reject revelation .Atheism has no such commitment

[Belacqua]

What he gets wrong is atheism because he paints atheism as knowing there are no gods, so he is arguing that agnosticism is more rational than atheism, because atheism claims to know and agnosticism doesn't. Atheism makes no positive claims.

Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:

Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Lack of belief or strong disbelief.

So, two definitions. One of them you like, the other you don't. 

When you are the emperor of the world, you can issue a command about which is acceptable.

---

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. 

That's right. That's what I said.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but do you think Atheism is lacking beliefs entirely?

No, I am saying the opposite. It's amazing to me that you'd imagine I've called atheism lacking beliefs entirely. How could you interpret such a wildly different meaning from what I've said?

I am very explicit in what I say: atheists have beliefs (=things we hold to be true). It is these beliefs which support and maintain the lack of belief in God. Therefore, atheism is not simply purely only lack, in the way that stones have a lack. It is a lack based on belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

What beliefs did I maintain and hold when I was born that "supported" my atheism? How about when I was five? 10? 15? 25, 35.........

I have never needed any beliefs to support or maintain the fact that I don't believe. It's just a brute observation. You might have reasoned or believed your way into atheism, plenty of others do as well, I'm sure. So what? You're acting as if you've never heard something and just didn't believe it, full stop. No clue why, no clue as to whether or not your disbelief was even warranted. Or, to return to a previous comment of yours..whether it was "natural" - I can tell you from experience that you wonder those sorts of things in a predominantly god believing world. You just didn't believe it. Who knows, maybe you simply couldn't believe it.

For at least some people, gods are and have always been like that. You don't need to do any maintenance on something that you don't possess. No pillars are required for a bridge that doesn't exist.

[The Architect Of Fate]

 am very explicit in what I say: atheists have beliefs (=things we hold to be true). It is these beliefs which support and maintain the lack of belief in God. Therefore, atheism is not simply purely only lack, in the way that stones have a lack. It is a lack based on belief.

Nope these beliefs which nothing to do with atheism and yes it's not the same as a stone but tha doesn't matter the mere existence of beliefs does not make them supports for a lack of belief or anything else.

[Mr.wizard]

Lack of belief or unbelief is a synonym for disbelief, they are not two different definitions.

I didn't know you were saying about atheism, this is what you said "I agree with you that atheism defined as lack and only lack is not a good position. I don't think it's possible in an adult human with a functioning brain."

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I think I get what you're saying. 

Natural language just isn't precise, and we have to say things like "I mean 'agnostic' in the sense of _____." 

As Prof. Lunaphiles says, tidying up definitions will help people understand each other. I think you agree with him on that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current definitions, the only two people amongst this entire site of atheists who seem to have a problem with the definitions are the two of you. The current definitions are simple short and accepted by almost every atheist I have ever talked to. The definitions are not even the important part of the god discussion, it's the concepts that are important.

Not all of the 12,000,000 members have reviewed the arguments. But you are recognizing a possible faction, and you are revealing a lack of tolerance.

I noticed, today, that there is a hardly used formal debate area, that requires teams - how can there be teams and formal debates if you and SodHead chase the rebels away?

Do you have any ideas on how to make rules for a debate? Somebody earnestly tried, but it does not seem like it went anywhere. I can guarantee you that the person who composes the rule system for such debates will probably be the next Mark Zuckerburg.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't need teams, you just need to find a person who wants to debate anything with you. The terms are described and agreed to by the debaters, however many there happen to be.

That out of the way, do you think the fact that the majority of members have not reviewed the arguments™ means that they're agnostics on the issue? I can guarantee you that it doesn't....because members present and not present take turns swatting down any number of these sorts of arguments™ - which we get with regularity.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not all of the 12,000,000 members have reviewed the arguments. But you are recognizing a possible faction, and you are revealing a lack of tolerance.

Why should he be tolerant ?

I noticed, today, that there is a hardly used formal debate area, that requires teams - how can there be teams and formal debates if you and SodHead chase the rebels away?

Do you have any ideas on how to make rules for a debate. Somebody earnestly tried, but it does not seem like it went anywhere. I can guarantee you that the person who composes the rule system for such debates will probably be the next Mark Zuckerburg.