firedragon
Veteran Member
About what?
-
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!
Is Atheism the Easier Position?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
About what?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No. I'm an atheist because I'm not convinced that gods exist.
PureX
Veteran Member
You're jumping the gun a bit, here. Theism proposes that a God/gods of some kind exists, and exists in some way that significantly effects humanity (if it does not effect humanity, it's a mute proposition). The specific conceptualizations of this proposal (and there are many): i.e., what God, and what effect, is the subject of 'theology'. Not 'theism'.
So the theist/atheist determination is very simple. The theist proposes that "God/gods" exist and effect humanity, and should then explain why he reasons this proposition is true. The atheist rejects the theist's proposition as being untrue, and then should be able to explain why he reasons it to be untrue. And that's pretty much all there is to the debate. And as far as the labels go; you are a theist if you accept the proposition as being true, and you are an atheist if you reject the proposition as being false.
"Belief", i.e., the presumption that our chosen position is the correct one, is pretty much irrelevant. As is the degree or intensity to which we "believe in" our own correctness. Because neither of these lend any credibility at all to the truthfulness of falsity of the proposition. They are therefor irrelevant to the debate.
Now, if you want to debate specific theological conceptualizations of the existence of 'God', and of how the existence of 'God' effects humanity, that is a specific theological debate. That debate does not define anyone as a theist or an atheist. In that debate we become the protagonists and the antagonists for a whole array of God-related propositions. And because of the variety and complexity of these proposed God-paradigms, we will likely find ourselves holding both the protagonist and antagonist positions, alternately, and simultaneously, in relation to the same theological paradigm. THAT debate if very complicated, and often has us wearing multiple labels at the same time. For example, I would agree that some aspects of the Christian theological paradigm are true, while I would simultaneously disagree and assert that other aspects of it are false. Neither of these reactions define me as a theist or an atheist. They simply define me as being only partially aligned with standard Christian theology.
The difference is WHY they remain undecided. For the agnostic, it's specifically because of a lack of pertinent/necessary information. For a skeptic it may be for any number of other reasons. Maybe they just don't like or trust the presenter of the proposal. Maybe they just don't like the "god" being proposed.
The word 'atheism' refers to the direct antithetical to theism. They are completely related. And neither of them are being defined by anyone's "belief". They are defined by their accepting as true, or rejecting as false, the proposition that God/gods exist, and that (it's) existence significantly effects humanity. Beyond that, it's no longer a philosophical debate, it's a theological debate.
Well, you really need to stop thinking that. Because it's simply untrue.
Please stop focusing of "belief", and try to focus on the CONTENT being proposed.
I agree.
No one cares what he or she or you or me "believes". All that matters is what is being asserted as true, or asserted as false, and why.
I agree. And the definitions have nothing to do with what anyone believes or does not believe. The definitions are based on what one asserts as being true, or untrue.
Yes, it does. A skeptic is a skeptic, and an atheist is an atheist. The atheist is not skeptical and the skeptic is not atheist. The atheist has chosen his position, and is making his assertion. The skeptic has not chosen his position, and is not making any assertions. The skeptic does not have to justify or defend his skepticism (though he should be able to). The atheist, on the other hand, is expected to justify and defend his position: i.e., that the theist proposition is untrue.
All I'm asking here is for people to simply be clear and honest about their positions by using the proper labels to define themselves. Why is my asking this like trying to pull teeth? Why are you and others so adamantly resisting the idea of people being honest and clear with each other about where they stand in relation to these ideas?
I can certainly see why the OP is proposing the possibility of some people here being disingenuous. I don't know why else they would fight so hard to maintain such a fog of confusion.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE EXISTS!!! Honest!
All that matters is what you assert to be true, or false. Please, please, please understand this. There is no discussing, no debating, and no conversing about what you do or do not believe. What you do or do not believe is your own concern. Period. What we want to know is what you think is true, or untrue, regarding the 'god proposition', AND WHY you think it. That's how we can learn from you, and how you can learn from us. Fighting about "belief" and "unbelief" is just a big waste of time.
I'm interested in what she believes...or doesn't believes.NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE EXISTS!!! Honest!
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
and yet here you are getting all manner of triggered over it...
PureX
Veteran Member
How many times do I have to ask people to just be clear and honest about what they assert to be true, or untrue? How many times do I have to explain that "belief" refers to our own internal sense of self-righteousness, and that it's irrelevant to anyone else? How many times will you and Revoltingest try to deflect and sidetrack the discussion away from these points to avoid having to actually address them?
Dunno.
Have you ever considered that the problem
is that you just don't understand?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE EXISTS!!! Honest!
Ouch PureX. Calm down. We're all civilized here.
(I don't read bold. Hard on the eyes and emotionally charged)
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Yes, you have beaten that dead horse for quite some time.
Funny how you are the only one who seems to think that way.
At this point I am merely interested in how long you are going to beat it.
I mean, geez, it is most impressive your arms have not fallen off yet...
I think atheism is easier, because it is basically nothing and requires nothing.
PureX
Veteran Member
Well, when you can't learn, and you can't teach, I guess all you can do is sit and watch.
PureX
Veteran Member
Have you?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes-it proposes god/s exist but has nothing to do with effecting society. Hindus and their gods don't affect society, nonetheless American society at large. To each his own.
The study of theism is part of theology.
Take out effects humanity and you'd be right (technically).
Atheists/theists doesn't need to explain reasons why their proposition is true unless they are, say, in a debate or having a discussion about it. Their being atheists/theists doesn't tell them they need to defend their positions.
If the proposition meaning god's existence, yes. Anything else, no.
True. It's still possible to debate it if both parties are interested.
I can see that for theologians but on RF, I wouldn't expect that sort of debate. Though I'm sure a few can sustain it if no one cracks jokes or debates about it.
The skeptics and agnostics? Who knows. Why is "why" important?
Even so, that's not a disadvantage or a bad thing. If they finally conclude god does not exist-that's good. If they find it it does-that's good. It depends on what the skeptic or agnostic person is searching for (if that is the case) in his or her spiritual journey. Others just let it be and go to work the next day.
Why make it so complicated?
There's no rejection.. that's adding to the definition. It's "I believe god exists" and "I don't" Okay. We believe the opposite-case closed. There's nothing behind it-nothing philosophical or theological (if talking about the reasoning rather than academic debate). It just is.
Belief by definition is accepting what's true without evidence. It could be anything-gods is nothing special.
Asking you to rephrase?
Conversations involve understanding both parties so it won't go off track. We'd know where each other stands and can reply appropriately. I usually have replies in one window to address it so I can directly refer to it. If I don't understand, I'll ask.
Ok. Just an assumption and observation.
It does. Belief is what someone accepts is true without evidence.
If you said accept what is fact (something that is supported) as opposed to belief, I'd disagree. In this case, by definition, belief is based on what one asserts is true and untrue.
Yes. The atheist position is based on belief because his belief is an assertion or proposal of what he or she feels is true.
The problem is when people do, you tell them they are wrong and rephrase their positions. If someone says they don't believe god exists and you say belief is wrong but assertion and making a position is better that doesn't take into account people just have different ways of expressing the same concept. I disagree with the add ons and I think you do too, one can debate about it, but I think how you're putting it is discrediting atheists views not disagreeing with it.
I don't know. Many OP threads make it seem like its objective but its really referring to something else on another thread, an opinion he or she wants to express as a response, or just ranting among other reasons. I don't know unless I ask.
When there appear to be misunderstandings, yes.
But I just ask about it...I don't get all yelly & insulting
the way some people do.
Magical Wand
Active Member
You see. That's the problem. You are presupposing religious claims are just speculations. But that's exactly what is being challenged by apologists. In order to maintain the position that it is all speculation, you have to present counter-arguments to their arguments (for the truth of their worldview), otherwise you are the one speculating.
And I'm not even talking about telling them what are your counter-arguments. Simply knowing the counter-arguments is sufficient.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It has its pros and cons. Some people need something to believe. Without it, that "nothing" would tear them apart. Think of it if one finds out there is no such thing as a creator and we're just spontaneous energy so happen to be here.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Purely platonically.
Should be taught in schools then - given that a quick five minute tour should suffice.