Is Atheism the Easier Position?

[firedragon]

I cannot think how I do not understand such a clear statement, looks like you simply do not want to answer the question, you made a statement but do not want to back it up, fine.

Yeah. You did not. I think you are looking to insult someone as well. You are attempting to make me a hypocrite right? Dont you see mate?

Haha. Anyway, what I meant was that making insults about religion, as if having a pocket full of insults on God and religion is almost a glossary of arguments for a lot of atheists. Do you know how many atheists in this forum claim that theists by default dont have intellect, IQ, education, mathematical capacity, etc etc? I have had many many threads opened to purely understand this arrogance.

Anyway, can you provide the data to substantiate your claim that 9 out of 10 christians will leave jews alone but not the atheist asking for justification? 9 out of 10 is 90%. Please provide the data.

 

[blü 2]

How do you know that? What evidence to have to prove your conclusion?

Because otherwise your statement has no meaning. Either kids are born with belief IN SOMETHING or in this context they're not born with that belief. So what SOMETHING are you actually talking about?

As I said, a generalized susceptibility to God ideas is not sufficient for your question.

 

[firedragon]

Because otherwise your statement has no meaning. Either kids are born with belief IN SOMETHING or in this context they're not born with that belief. So what SOMETHING are you actually talking about?

As I said, a generalized susceptibility to God ideas is not sufficient for your question.

I didnt make any claim. So your question is a strawman.

You made a claim But of course, no research to prove it. Is there?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I did not understand your statement MT.

Well atheists might be all sorts of things but I suspect they aren't reliant on one particular book or texts, so what does that make those who are so? I would think that we all might contemplate the issue of being wrong in our beliefs, so what might it mean to any who do believe in the veracity of some particular religious text - but which might not be as they believe? It seems all too easy to disparage others with beliefs or not but hardly useful especially if one is tied to one belief or another and unable to place oneself in their position.

 

[firedragon]

Well atheists might be all sorts of things but I suspect they aren't reliant on one particular book or texts, so what does that make those who are so? I would think that we all might contemplate the issue of being wrong in our beliefs, so what might it mean to any who do believe in the veracity of some particular religious text - but which might not be as they believe? It seems all too easy to disparage others with beliefs or not but hardly useful especially if one is tied to one belief or another and unable to place oneself in their position.

How is that relevant?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, if you look at the flip side, I believe that atheists have been the most demeaning and insulting which seems like insults is the main argument sometimes. Its so common. I am not saying personal insults, but just you know throwing pejorative terms at religions, scripture, religious people, God, concepts or/and what ever other things one could catch hold of. Atheists in my personal experience have been the most tribalistic and dogmatic. Also they are the ones who mostly speak of things they have no clue of with a lot of assumptions and a no acceptance of a mistake attitude.

I have always found that amusing.

I suspect that many don't see the privileges so often required of religious belief - blasphemy and such - as being defensible in their view of how the world should operate - that is, that there should be level playing field for all such belief systems. One can hardly not see that religions have the upper hand in so many countries as to this being reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How is that relevant?

Erm, as to the arrogance of some in assuming their position.

 

[firedragon]

I suspect that many don't see the privileges so often required of religious belief - blasphemy and such - as being defensible in their view of how the world should operate - that is, that there should be level playing field for all such belief systems. One can hardly not see that religions have the upper hand in so many countries as to this being reality.

You like to speak about blasphemy? Maybe this thread would be more fitting.

Criminalisation of Blasphemy: is it equal to criminalising proselytism?

 

[firedragon]

Erm, as to the arrogance of some in assuming their position.

How is that relevant?

 

[Mock Turtle]

How is that relevant?

You don't think that reliance on one particular document, and from so long ago, is relevant as to why some believe something and others don't?

 

[firedragon]

You don't think that reliance on one particular document, and from so long ago, is relevant as to why some believe something and others don't?

Thats another topic.

 

[blü 2]

I didnt make any claim. So your question is a strawman.

You asked how it could be demonstrated that children are born with no belief.

It's your question, not mine. So I ask you, no belief in what, precisely?

 

[firedragon]

You asked how it could be demonstrated that children are born with no belief.

Thats because some one made the claim. So what is the evidence this person provided? Can you elaborate?

 

[blü 2]

Thats because some one made the claim. So what is the evidence this person provided? Can you elaborate?

Not until you tell me, evidence for WHAT?

 

[Revoltingest]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

I'm late to this one, so this post will be a non sequitur.

Atheism is easy for me.
There's no alternative, so "easier" doesn't apply.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But that's not atheism, that's just undetermined skepticism. If one says "I'm an undetermined skeptic regarding the existence of any gods" we would not then ask them to defend a position they have not yet determined to hold. But if one proclaims themselves to be atheist, they are proclaiming the antithetical position to theism which is the proposition that a God/gods do exist in a way that significantly effects humanity. So, of course, the antithetical to that proposition is that such God/gods do not exist in any way that effects humanity. So if one does not want to be called on to defend atheism, they shouldn't proclaim themselves to be atheist.

See how reasonable and sensible this is?

It is. When you don't believe god exists, you can't have a concept of it. It doesn't exist so ideally an atheist shouldn't know what it is to even have an opinion about it.

Skeptic makes me think of agnosticism not atheism to where they don't know and don't claim they know if there is a god or not.

If one is an atheist they are claim there don't believe deities exist. It has nothing to do with theism.

You'd have to rephrase this, though. When I think of atheist, I think of someone who does not believe deities exist. Anything else is irrelevant.

There is nothing to "look at". What one does not believe and does not assert is irrelevant to everyone, including even himself. There is nothing to consider, or discuss. It's empty rhetoric.

If you understand atheism doesn't have to do with theism etc then it would be irrelevant. If you're open to what it actually means without adding some atheists assumed opinions of theism, then it would be irrelevant.

The problem, here, is the intent to negate a position in advance of it's being proposed. It's just plain dishonest. Either your mind is open to a proposition or it's not. If you are an undetermined skeptic, then your mind is still open to the theist proposition. If you are an atheist, then your mind is not open (to any theist's proposition). And I find that a great many self-proclaimed atheists are trying to claim both roles at the same time. And that's both dishonest, and frustrating for any theist to try and deal with in discussion.

This is what this thread is trying to address.

Maybe you have trouble with understanding how someone does not believe god exists... that's fine. I rather you say you don't know than tell atheists they are dishonest for claiming they don't believe in deities.

Some people are skeptics and others are atheists.

Yes, atheists mind isn't open to the exists of deities because he or she does not believe they exist. Why would their minds need to be open to "nothing"?

That's like telling me to be open that (I don't know) that ghosts exist just because thousands of people believe in them (analogy) and opposing theists ideas. To me, that's silly.

I don't agree with the OPs view and question. Atheism and theism, by technical definition, are very straight forward in their definitions. Anything theists and atheists add to it depends on the individual person but doesn't change the definition.

Well, if they are honest, all I have to do is ask. Unfortunately, many are not. And so I have to try and determine from discussion whether or not their minds are still open to the theist proposition, in some form, or they are just out to negate anything I propose.

Many may be skeptics but that doesn't invalidate the definition of atheism. It just means atheists may have their own definitions of why/how they don't believe deities exist.

I am a theist, and even I do not accept many of the god-concepts that other theists propose. So I don't expect anyone to be open to them all. But an atheist is not going to be open to any of them, because atheism is the determined antithetical position to theism. And the atheist should be honest about this. AND they should be willing to defend their atheism to the same degree and by the same standards that they demand the theist to defend, his.

No. They're like you, you don't accept the concepts other theists propose. Atheists don't accept none of what any theists propose.

I'll use myself as an example to understand what you're saying. I do not believe any deities exist.

Why/how would I defend that deities don't exist?
Why would my position be any different than just not believing in the existence of deities?

My mind can be closed, sure, but that's a default. I don't have to be interested in deities to want to "open my mind" to the possibility of their existence. I have nothing to benefit from knowing deities exist. Anything else you add about theism is irrelevant because I never grown up in a theistic environment to have any strong and argumentative opinions about it.

Also, can you rephrase this "atheism is the determined antithetical position to theism"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But that's not atheism, that's just undetermined skepticism. If one says "I'm an undetermined skeptic regarding the existence of any gods" we would not then ask them to defend a position they have not yet determined to hold. But if one proclaims themselves to be atheist, they are proclaiming the antithetical position to theism which is the proposition that a God/gods do exist in a way that significantly effects humanity. So, of course, the antithetical to that proposition is that such God/gods do not exist in any way that effects humanity. So if one does not want to be called on to defend atheism, they shouldn't proclaim themselves to be atheist.

If they are atheist, however, they should be prepared and willing to defend their antithetical position to theism, just as they would expect the theist to defend his pro-position.

See how reasonable and sensible this is?
There is nothing to "look at". What one does not believe and does not assert is irrelevant to everyone, including even himself. There is nothing to consider, or discuss. It's empty rhetoric.
The problem, here, is the intent to negate a position in advance of it's being proposed. It's just plain dishonest. Either your mind is open to a proposition or it's not. If you are an undetermined skeptic, then your mind is still open to the theist proposition. If you are an atheist, then your mind is not open (to any theist's proposition). And I find that a great many self-proclaimed atheists are trying to claim both roles at the same time. And that's both dishonest, and frustrating for any theist to try and deal with in discussion.

This is what this thread is trying to address.
Well, if they are honest, all I have to do is ask. Unfortunately, many are not. And so I have to try and determine from discussion whether or not their minds are still open to the theist proposition, in some form, or they are just out to negate anything I propose.

I am a theist, and even I do not accept many of the god-concepts that other theists propose. So I don't expect anyone to be open to them all. But an atheist is not going to be open to any of them, because atheism is the determined antithetical position to theism. And the atheist should be honest about this. AND they should be willing to defend their atheism to the same degree and by the same standards that they demand the theist to defend, his.

Another thing that annoys me. Why can't you and theists in general believe there are some people who just don't believe deities exist?

Anything you guys add to it is irrelevant. As long as they don't believe deities don't exist, they are atheist. I can see why that's hard to understand if impossible but a whole 'nother to add possible justifications for their disbelief rather than accepting it at face value.

 

[firedragon]

Not until you tell me, evidence for WHAT?

For the question you responded to on behalf of someone else who made a claim. So why dont you engage with the original claimant and clarify your claims or questions with him?

Best of luck.

 

[blü 2]

For the question you responded to on behalf of someone else who made a claim. So why dont you engage with the original claimant and clarify your claims or questions with him?

So when you replied to the poster, you had no idea what you were talking about? You were trying to dismiss the point by bluff?

Okay, noted.

 

[firedragon]

So when you replied to the poster, you had no idea what you were talking about? You were trying to dismiss the point by bluff?

Okay, noted.

So when you tried vehemently to provide research strategies, you had no clue "FOR WHAT"!!

Very good. Good job.