• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

firedragon

Veteran Member
I agree. It's why I started this thread. I wanted to make atheists face the difference between atheism, and agnosticism, and clarify why, logically, they chose atheism when they could simply have remained agnostic.
Actually, there is only one "type of atheist". And that is the type that counter-claims that no gods exist. There are, however, a lot of different people making that counter claim for a lot of different reasons, and some of them are very clear and committed to their claims, while others are not very clear or committed to them. Atheism is not defined by these people. Atheism is one of three possible responses to the theist truth claim. Nothing more, and nothing less. How we each as individuals relate ourselves to this one particular response is as varied and dynamic as we are. But the response, itself, remains the same, and intact.
I like the introduction of all these label variants because they put the variations back on the people, instead of muddying up and confusing the atheist counter response to the theist truth claim. I don't like "strong" and "weak" atheist assertions because they are misleading terms and they try to divide the atheist counter-claim based on personalities rather than content.

There is no choice but to use these terms. And these are actually not terms created by others to refer to atheists. They are actual social constructs. Even I dont like this kind of strong and weak terminologies but the thing is, I have never come across those terms in any academic books or papers. Hard atheists is a yes.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Why do you want to eliminate the defining aspect of the position? The lack of belief?
Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted. The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted. The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefor to make any assertion. There is no need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
I've never seen an honest Atheist - for example, I've never seen myself an atheists that properly analyzes arguments for or against God. So this is my conclusion, that you guys over all are dishonest.

Thats not a fair statement Link. There are many honest atheists. Like in all theologies, and all other kind of "ogies" and "Isms", there are dishonest persons, but generalising dishonesty to all of any group or definition is bigotry.

I would like to ask you not to do that, but its your prerogative.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thats not a fair statement Link. There are many honest atheists. Like in all theologies, and all other kind of "ogies" and "Isms", there are dishonest persons, but generalising dishonesty to all of any group or definition is bigotry.

I would like to ask you not to do that, but its your prerogative.

You are right, I said it in anger. But you are right.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted. The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted. The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination. There is not need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.

And I am simply pointing out that your definitions are NOT how the language is being used by the people you claim have those positions.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Belief has nothing to do with theism?
It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.
Theism is not the claim. I mean, I will accept that theism exists. The claim is: God/gods exist. This one I will not accept.
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
How is that different from what I said. C'mon!

Read the rest of what I said. You seem to be confusing the weak and strong agnostic positions as well as confusing the theist/atheist viewpoints as being about something other than belief.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
An interesting contrast that I noticed when someone quoted the OP:

I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.

Well, that's just silly. Words have to mean something to mean something. They can't just mean anything or they don't mean anything at all.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.

And, just like any other claim, the question becomes whether there is evidence for the claim and how good it is.

If the evidence is convincing, you become a theist. If it is not, then you are an atheist. This is whether or not you consider knowledge about the question to be possible (agnosticism).
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Belief has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. Theists believe that at least one god exists. They may also claim to know, but I've never seen any credible justification for that claim.
Theism is the claim.

Theism is not "the" claim, theism consists of thousands of different and often contradictory claims.
What you or anyone believes about the claim is irrelevant to the fact of the claim itself: ... that the claim stands before you.

And any thoughtful and reasonable response to any specific claim will include belief and knowledge. Have you given me sufficient reason to accept (believe) it and can I know one way or the other?

Some of the theists claims can be dismissed because they are self-contradictory or contradict known evidence, so we can make a reasonable claim to know that they are false. Most, on the other hand, are unfalsifiable, so it's back to have we got good reason to take them seriously? If the answer is no, then not believing it is rational even though it's impossible to know for sure.
I think you should ask yourself why it's so important to you that you drag people's beliefs into what is otherwise a simple, clear, proposition. Why can't you just face the proposition, and respond to it?

Why is it so important to you to deny the standard definitions and what people are actually telling you about what they believe and know? You are the one who is desperate enough to deny ordinary dictionary definitions and make up a straw man version of atheism.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
... Most, on the other hand, are unfalsifiable, so it's back to have we got good reason to take them seriously? If the answer is no, then not believing it is rational even though it's impossible to know for sure.
...

Note first. The rest of your post is good in my understanding.
But I have never been able to observe a good reason. Maybe you can explain its feature or what instrument to use?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And I am simply pointing out that your definitions are NOT how the language is being used by the people you claim have those positions.
Language does not determine logic. In fact, the way people use words is often very illogical, and even meant to be. Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that. Theism is a truth claim. Atheism is the counter claim. And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination. We humans, on the other hand, are all over the place and often in ten places at once. We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Language does not determine logic. In fact, the way people use words is often very illogical, and even meant to be. Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that. Theism is a truth claim. Atheism is the counter claim. And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination. We humans, on the other hand, are all over the place and often in ten places at once. We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.

So you don't use your understanding of logic? If not, please explain?
 

AppieB

Active Member
It has nothing to do with the theist truth claim (God/gods exist). Which is what theism is all about.
Without the theist truth claim, there is no theism by any other definition.
But the theist believes (accepts, asserts) the claim to be true. The claim is: God/gods exist . The theist does believe this is true.
The atheist does not believe this is true.
That doesn't necessarily mean that an atheist believes the opposite is true. That's a different claim (God/gods don't exist).

The claim itself is different than the believe about the claim. That's where you go wrong.

Still wondering what your definition of theism is and how Logic can define words.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
An interesting contrast that I noticed when someone quoted the OP:
I cannot determine the nature or existence of infinity, and yet I can still perceive it as an ideal, even if a profoundly mysterious one.

The truth nearly always appears paradoxical to our human minds. It's an artifact of how the human brain functions (compare/contrast/repeat).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
But the theist believes (accepts, asserts) the claim to be true.
I am a theist, and I do not accept or assert that God/gods exist as a truth claim. Which is why what I believe or don't believe does not and should not define theism.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Language does not determine logic.

No but if you're going to try to apply logic to terms that have standard definitions, then you need to use them, not make up your own.

It's also a logical fallacy to set up a straw man version of the position people you are arguing against are taking.
Theism is a truth claim.

No, it isn't. Theism consists of thousands of different truth claims, at least most of which are wrong because they contradict each other. Theists are those people who believe one of those claims.
Atheism is the counter claim.

No it isn't. Atheism is not accepting any of the theist claims are true, i.e. not believing that any are true.
And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is the position that we can't or don't know.
We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.

Dictionaries come in handy here because they try to reflect the consensus in how words are used, which raises the question of why you are ignoring them, and you own advice here, and just making up definitions to suit yourself.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So you don't use your understanding of logic? If not, please explain?
Unexplained logic is worthless to anyone but ourselves. So I explain the logic of my reasoning. And that's all I am asking of the atheists, here. I don't own any particular logic, and neither does anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top