A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[PureX]

The irony is that you've asked atheists about their reasoning for a position that you've just made up, not what they, or the standard usage of the word, actually mean. Then you accuse them of being illogical.

The problem is that you want to insist that atheism is "I don't believe you" when "I don't believe you" is just skeptism. Atheism is "I disagree" (with the assertion that God/gods exist). Which then leaves it to be interpreted only one way (no gods exist). And the reason that "I don't believe you" is not atheism is because it also applies to agnosticism, and even to theism. Which makes defining atheism that way meaningless and pointless. But you and others here refuse to accept that logic because you can't logically defend your atheism, and you desperately need some way to avoid having to do so. So you hide behind the insistence that your atheism is just "I don't believe you". When the truth is that you do believe that no gods exist.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a counter claim by logical default.

No it isn't, that's just a lie you keep asserting.

And if you can't defend it you shouldn't hold yourself to it.

Atheism is just a lack or absence of belief, it is not a claim, so it needs no logical defence, to claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and thus is irrational by definition.

Why not just remain agnostic

I already told you multiple times that I am an agnostic where the deity imagined is an unfalsifiable premise, why do you keep lying?

What benefit is there to labeling yourself as claiming that no gods exist?

I have never labelled myself in that way, and again I have stated that I have not made any such claim, so why you keep lying like this only you can know? I am an atheist, and I do not believe any deity or deities exist. That is not a claim to anyone with a basic grasp of English, and any integrity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that you want to insist that atheism is "I don't believe you" when "I don't believe you" is just skeptism. Atheism is "I disagree" (with the assertion that God/gods exist). Which then leaves it to be interpreted only one way (no gods exist). And the reason that "I don't believe you" is not atheism is because it also applies to agnosticism, and even to theism. Which makes defining atheism that way meaningless and pointless. But you and others here refuse to accept that logic because you can't logically defend your atheism, and you desperately need some way to avoid having to do so. So you hide behind the insistence that your atheism is just "I don't believe you". When the truth is that you de believe that no gods exist.

Yeah, I disagree with your subjective opinion and have another. Now what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Atheism is just a lack or absence of belief, it is not a claim, so it needs no logical defence, to claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and thus is irrational by definition.
...

No, that is not a fact. That is one of several subjective definitions of atheism.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, I disagree with your subjective opinion and have another. Now what?

Explain the basis of your disagreement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Explain the basis of your disagreement.

That I can think differently than you and thus act differently. That also applies for you in reverse. Now explain that and don't explain it away!

 

[PureX]

That I can think differently than you and thus act differently. That also applies for you in reverse. Now explain that and don't explain it away!

Explain how you are thinking differently from the way I portrayed in the post you are objecting to, please. (And by the way, that post was directed at someone else.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Explain how you are thinking differently from the way I portrayed in the post you are objecting to, please.

That I personally use a different version of some words and so do you as different. And that we can both do it and this is not limited to us 2. That is in part of the limit of philosophy in the end.

 

[Sheldon]

Explain the basis of your disagreement.

Your version is at odds with the dictionary definition of atheism, and with many atheists who have told you so multiple times, but you either ignore them, or lie that they hold the position of your straw man definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your version is at odds with the dictionary definition of atheism, and with many atheists who have told you so multiple times, but you either ignore them, or lie that they hold the position of your straw man definition.

But dictionary definitions are not evidence as such. They are evidence of usage and not reference. There is a difference. But then we are playing models of how words work and that is done using words in the end. We are in the la-la land of philosophy.

 

[PureX]

That I personally use a different version of some words and so do you as different. And that we can both do it and this is not limited to us 2. That is in part of the limit of philosophy in the end.

We aren't using different versions of the words. We are ascribing a different meaning to them. Ascribing the meaning, "I don't believe you" to the word 'atheism' renders the word unnecessary, because we already have other words that mean, "I don't believe you". Like 'skepticism' and 'agnosticisn' and even 'theism'. And we could simply just say, "I don't believe you'. There's no need to use the word 'atheism' at all.

So why render the word pointless, and then use it? What is the logic in doing that?

 

[ratiocinator]

The problem is that you want to insist that atheism is "I don't believe you"...

Which it is.

...when "I don't believe you" is just skeptism.

In this case, specifically about god propositions.

Atheism is "I disagree" (with the assertion that God/gods exist). Which then leaves it to be interpreted only one way (no gods exist).

Of course it doesn't. You don't seem to get how language works. Just because we can call atheism scepticism (I don't believe you) specifically about god-claims, doesn't mean that said position cannot be included in the definition of another word.

And the reason that "I don't believe you" is not atheism is because it also applies to agnosticism...

Which isn't a reason because, as has already been explained to you multiple times, they refer to different things: belief and knowledge. Even if it wasn't the case, natural language doesn't work like that.

Which makes defining atheism that way meaningless and pointless.

Of course it doesn't. It means we don't believe you (because you haven't made a case for your god proposition) but we cannot possibly be 100% certain that it must be false. This is really, very, very simple.

It's not even like god-propositions are in a different category to anything else. Until and unless I'm given good reason to believe any proposition (including scientific conjectures or hypotheses), I'll have the same stance. Namely, that I'm not going to take it seriously until you give me good reason to.

But you and others here refuse to accept that logic..

Foot-stamping about what things are allowed and not allowed to mean, despite their accepted definitions, is not logic.

...because you can't logically defend your atheism

It's trivially easy to defend. What we can't do is defend a position we don't actually hold.

...and you desperately need some way to avoid having to do so. So you hide behind the insistence that your atheism is just "I don't believe you". When the truth is that you do believe that no gods exist.

It looks far, far more like you're the desperate one in this conversation. I'd be asking myself why I desperately wanted atheism to be illogical, if I were you...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We aren't using different versions of the words. We are ascribing a different meaning to them. Ascribing the meaning, "I don't believe you" to the word 'atheism' renders the word unnecessary, because we already have other words that mean, "I don't believe you". Like 'skepticism' and 'agnosticisn' and even 'theism'. And we could simply just say, "I don't believe you'. There's no need to use the word 'atheism' at all.

So why render the word pointless, and then use it? What is the logic in doing that?

There is no in the strong sense objective meaning to words. There might be an objective referent but only for the objective.

 

[Sheldon]

No, that is not a fact.

I never claimed it was a fact, I cited the primary dictionary definition as an objective reference point. I also pointed out that my own atheism is reflected in this definition, and is simply and only the lack or absence of belief, it is not a contrary claim to theism.

He has waved this away, and insists on trying to tell me and others what they think, and do or do not believe. Which is pretty hilarious.

The hilarity is derived in no little part from his obsession with labelling atheism as irrational, then using a straw man fallacy to do it. Pretty funny....

 

[PureX]

There is no in the strong sense objective meaning to words. There might be an objective referent but only for the objective.

All the more reason why we need to mind the logic and intention with which we use words.

 

[ratiocinator]

We aren't using different versions of the words. We are ascribing a different meaning to them. Ascribing the meaning, "I don't believe you" to the word 'atheism' renders the word unnecessary, because we already have other words that mean, "I don't believe you". Like 'skepticism' and 'agnosticisn' and even 'theism'. And we could simply just say, "I don't believe you'. There's no need to use the word 'atheism' at all.

Except none of those words or phrases mean exactly the same thing as atheism, and even if one of them did, have you never heard of synonyms?

 

[Sheldon]

Foot-stamping about what things are allowed and not allowed to mean, despite their accepted definitions, is not logic.

Exactly, he doesn't seem to see how this is coming across, or he doesn't care. It's not as if he's the first religious apologist to ever try and falsely insist atheism carries a burden of proof, William Lane Craig tried this idiocy more than once.

The real irony is he his insisting all atheists adhere to his straw man version of atheism, in order to claim they are being irrational, the irony of using a known logical fallacy to do this must have also escaped him.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never claimed it was a fact, I cited the primary dictionary definition as an objective reference point. I also pointed out that my own atheism is reflected in this definition, and is simply and only the lack or absence of belief, it is not a contrary claim to theism.

He has waved this away, and insists on trying to tell me and others what they think, and do or do not believe. Which is pretty hilarious.

The hilarity is derived in no little part from his obsession with labelling atheism as irrational, then using a straw man fallacy to do it. Pretty funny....

Yeah, it is funny. But that is without objective evidence and that is also funny.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the more reason why we need to mind the logic and intention with which we use words.

Yeah, but you are not a "we" and neither am I. So for those cases of "we", I do them. I am skeptic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lacking belief in gods is also called theism, and called agnosticism. Because a lack can be called anything you want, or called nothing at all, and it'll be equally meaningless either way. Because a lack is nothing.

Umm, no. Theism is the belief in existence of god(s).
I lack that belief, and so I am an atheist.

Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, rather than belief.

And it's both idiotic and silly every time.

Is that why you refuse to take it in and understand it? Because you think it's idiotic and silly to have proper definitions of terms?

Why do you feel the need to be both?

Because I am both.