Religion and Atheism

[usfan]

It tells you about what is NOT being believed, not about what IS being believed.
And that is where the confusion comes from.

I'm not confused at all. It is very clear to me that atheism, a belief in 'no gods', is a religious opinion. And that the believers in atheism hold to it as a religion.

I see that this perception enrages some atheists, which imo, is the 'snowflake effect', so i don't make a big deal about it. But the hostile denial from those who want to elevate themselves on some 'higher plane', of existence is just old fashioned elitism and religious bigotry, pretending THEIR 'beliefs', are absolute, wise, and true, while everyone else is superstitious and stupid.

..a common, human thing..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is very clear to me that atheism, a belief in 'no gods',

Not what atheism is.

Do you understand the difference between:
"I don't believe the claim that gods exist"
and
"I believe the claim that no gods exist"?

These are 2 different positions.
The second is compatible with the first, but they are not the same.
The first is what atheism is.

The second is atheism + additional claims

And that the believers in atheism hold to it as a religion.

Newsflash: most atheists are agnostics. In fact, I never met a gnostic atheism. A gnostic atheist, would be someone who positively believes that no gods exist.

I see that this perception enrages some atheists

"enrages"?
I think you mean "annoys".
And yes, it annoys me. And what annoys me is that it doesn't seem to matter that I, who actually IS an atheist, can explain to theists like you a 100 times over how you misrepresent my actual position and it wouldn't matter... they'll just continue repeating the same falsehoods and strawmen.

THAT is what annoys me. Not that you are wrong about what atheism is all about. But the stubborness, the unwillingness to actually learn, the arrogant pretense of thinking you know my position better then I do.

But the hostile denial from those who want to elevate themselves on some 'higher plane', of existence is just old fashioned elitism and religious bigotry, pretending THEIR 'beliefs', are absolute, wise, and true, while everyone else is superstitious and stupid.
..a common, human thing..

I just don't like it when people misrepresent my position on whatever issue.
Yes, it absolutely effing annoys me. Especially after having to explain it dozens of times and it STILL falling on deaf ears. Very much.

I think I know my stances and positions and beliefs better then you.

So when I tell you what I mean when I call myself an "atheist", you'ld do well to just accept it instead of telling me that I am wrong about what goes on in my own head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not what atheism is.

Do you understand the difference between:
"I don't believe the claim that gods exist"
and
"I believe the claim that no gods exist"?

These are 2 different positions.
The second is compatible with the first, but they are not the same.
The first is what atheism is.

The second is atheism + additional claims



Newsflash: most atheists are agnostics. In fact, I never met a gnostic atheism. A gnostic atheist, would be someone who positively believes that no gods exist.



"enrages"?
I think you mean "annoys".
And yes, it annoys me. And what annoys me is that it doesn't seem to matter that I, who actually IS an atheist, can explain to theists like you a 100 times over how you misrepresent my actual position and it wouldn't matter... they'll just continue repeating the same falsehoods and strawmen.

THAT is what annoys me. Not that you are wrong about what atheism is all about. But the stubborness, the unwillingness to actually learn, the arrogant pretense of thinking you know my position better then I do.



I just don't like it when people misrepresent my position on whatever issue.
Yes, it absolutely effing annoys me. Especially after having to explain it dozens of times and it STILL falling on deaf ears. Very much.

I think I know my stances and positions and beliefs better then you.

So when I tell you what I mean when I call myself an "atheist", you'ld do well to just accept it instead of telling me that I am wrong about what goes on in my own head.

Perhaps we should tell him what a Christian is and that he is not a Christian. I do not think that he would enjoy the turnabout.

 

[usfan]

Not what atheism is.

So you believe. So you assert. I prefer the dictionary definitions and common sense usage, instead of elitist redefinitions from the snowflake effect.

Perhaps we should tell him what a Christian is and that he is not a Christian. I do not think that he would enjoy the turnabout.

Knock yourself out. I'm quite used to the misrepresentations, distortions, and revisionism from progressive indoctrinees. Your exercise would, I'm sure, be very entertaining.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe. So you assert. I prefer the dictionary definitions and common sense usage, instead of elitist redefinitions from the snowflake effect.

Dictionary definitions ha....

Atheism
noun
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings


OEPS!

 

[Willamena]

Not what atheism is.

It's all that atheism is.

Do you understand the difference between:
"I don't believe the claim that gods exist"
and
"I believe the claim that no gods exist"?

These are 2 different positions.
The second is compatible with the first, but they are not the same.
The first is what atheism is.

The second is atheism + additional claims

Atheism is not described in any dictionary as belief in a claim.

 

[usfan]

Dictionary definitions ha....

Atheism
noun
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings


OEPS!

You can pick and choose any definition you like. Far be it from me to demean what people believe..

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm not confused at all. It is very clear to me that atheism, a belief in 'no gods', is a religious opinion. And that the believers in atheism hold to it as a religion.

I see that this perception enrages some atheists, which imo, is the 'snowflake effect', so i don't make a big deal about it. But the hostile denial from those who want to elevate themselves on some 'higher plane', of existence is just old fashioned elitism and religious bigotry, pretending THEIR 'beliefs', are absolute, wise, and true, while everyone else is superstitious and stupid.

..a common, human thing..

If you tell a 3 year-old that he is stupid, or a man that he is a woman, this might also provoke a hostile denial. Do you purposely try to provoke and enrage Atheists by telling them that their specific position, is just another religion because it is theist-specific? If Atheism is a religion, then you are also an Atheist. Unless, you believe that all religious Deities and God(s) exist, then you are an Atheist to those you don't believe exist.

If you don't want others to appear to "elevate themselves on some 'higher plane', of existence", then don't make belief claims sound like truth claims. You can believe in anything you want. But, when you claim that your beliefs are true, then this requires evidence. If you don't want to appear "superstitious and stupid", then defend your claim by producing one piece of objective evidence, one example of anything existing outside our 4 dimensional reality, one consistent and fallacy-free argument, or one example of the laws of physics being violated or suspended?

Atheists, skeptics and rationalist, do not need to pretend that their position is absolute, wise, or true. Their position is based only on the total lack of objective evidence that can demonstrate the existence of a God(s). The evidence against God's existence is overwhelming. Since there is zero evidence supporting any supernatural claim, the default position is that no God(s) exists. You are making the extraordinary claim, therefore, you have the burden of producing the extraordinary evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's all that atheism is.

Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm telling you that it isn't.

Atheism is not described in any dictionary as belief in a claim.

Then why did you disagree with me when I said that that is not what atheism is (believing the claim of "no gods exist")?

Or were you perhaps just mistaken?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can pick and choose any definition you like. Far be it from me to demean what people believe..

You said you go by dictionary definitions.
But the dictionary definition doesn't agree with what you are claiming.

So instead of acknowledging your mistake, you "come back" with that meaningless one liner.

Cool.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you believe. So you assert. I prefer the dictionary definitions and common sense usage, instead of elitist redefinitions from the snowflake effect.

atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

SOURCE: https://www.google.com/search?q=ath...4.1775j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]
SOURCE: Atheism - Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

atheism noun

1. a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

SOURCE: Definition of ATHEISM

atheism
NOUN
mass noun

• Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

SOURCE: atheism | Definition of atheism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

atheism
noun
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SOURCE: Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

atheist
noun [ C ]
someone who does not believe in any God or gods:
SOURCE: ATHEIST | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Point is, there are a lot of dictionaries which more broadly define "atheism" as the lack of belief in God rather than the belief that there is no God, so there is nothing "elitest" and no requirement to "redfine" atheism when using the term in this way. There is also nothing "common sense" about ignoring these definitions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can pick and choose any definition you like. Far be it from me to demean what people believe..

Except, according to you, when other people do "pick and choose" which definition they use, they're "redefining" the term or being "elitest" because of the "snowflake effect".

However, when you "pick and choose" your definition, it's just "common sense".

If you truly wish for reasonable discourse, maybe from now on go without the baseless presumptions of other people's intents and use less obviously derisive language. And also maybe don't be smug when you're being a hypocrite.

 

[Augustus]

Newsflash: most atheists are agnostics. In fact, I never met a gnostic atheism. A gnostic atheist, would be someone who positively believes that no gods exist.

There's quite a few of us here

I believe that, on balance of probabilities, no gods exist and so I live my life accordingly. Might be wrong on this, but I'm likely wrong in many of my beliefs.

I'd say this is a very common belief among atheists, as in my experience, they don't consider it equally likely that gods do or do not exist. Most I know strongly favour the idea that no gods exist.

 

[usfan]

The evidence against God's existence is overwhelming.

Hardly. That is just a belief. What evidence do you have for 'no God?' Indoctrination? Wishful thinking?

Since there is zero evidence supporting any supernatural claim, the default position is that no God(s) exists. You are making the extraordinary claim, therefore, you have the burden of producing the extraordinary evidence.

I'm making no claim. I am extrapolating that a
a belief in 'no God' is a religio/philosophical opinion, regarding the nature of the universe. It is, in actual reality, a religious belief, and the intense hostility from some atheists for being included in a 'religious belief!' implies that the term has become pejorative. Since atheists use the term to demean theists, it is only fair to point out that their beliefs are also inherently religious.

Point is, there are a lot of dictionaries which more broadly define "atheism" as the lack of belief in God rather than the belief that there is no God, so there is nothing "elitest" and no requirement to "redfine" atheism when using the term in this way. There is also nothing "common sense" about ignoring these definitions.

You can define and juggle the words however you want. But the bottom line is that atheism, a BELIEF in 'no gods', is a religio/philosophical opinion, nothing more. Denial and insults does not change this reality.

If you truly wish for reasonable discourse, maybe from now on go without the baseless presumptions of other people's intents and use less obviously derisive language. And also maybe don't be smug when you're being a hypocrite.

ROFL!!
So, you wish to reserve 'religious!', as a smear term for theists only, and bristle if anyone points out that YOUR beliefs are inherently religious, as well? Then spice up your denial with a few more pointed insults, since 'religious!' doesn't have enough bite?


You seem offended that anyone would dare suggest that YOUR beliefs are just like everyone else's.. a religio/philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe.

The pejoratve, 'religious!', should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for 'smug, religious hypocrites!!' ..lol!

I'd say this is a very common belief among atheists, as in my experience, they don't consider it equally likely that gods do or do not exist. Most I know strongly favour the idea that no gods exist.

There is already a term for uncertainty, regarding belief in God. Why try to mix them?

Levels of conviction are not really the issue, and people can add qualifiers for any base position.

But regarding God, there are 3 basic positions/beliefs:
Theism
Atheism
Agnosticism

One could be a dogmatic/strong, or a weak/leaning, in any opinion. They can add the qualifiers, if that is important to them, but it is not essential in describing a basic belief.

 

[Augustus]

There is already a term for uncertainty, regarding belief in God. Why try to mix them?

Levels of conviction are not really the issue, and people can add qualifiers for any base position.

But regarding God, there are 3 basic positions/beliefs:
Theism
Atheism
Agnosticism

One could be a dogmatic/strong, or a weak/leaning, in any opinion. They can add the qualifiers, if that is important to them, but it is not essential in describing a basic belief.

I hate qualifies such as 'strong atheist', 'implicit atheist' and especially 'gnostic atheist' which is the worst term in the history of the world ever (apart from maybe 'Brights').

Belief has nothing to do with certainty anyway, so I'll stick with atheist

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can define and juggle the words however you want. But the bottom line is that atheism, a BELIEF in 'no gods', is a religio/philosophical opinion, nothing more. Denial and insults does not change this reality.

I just provided you with six independent definitions of atheism which specify that it is more broadly defined as a "lack of belief" in a God. Currently, you are the one in denial.

ROFL!!
So, you wish to reserve 'religious!', as a smear term for theists only, and bristle if anyone points out that YOUR beliefs are inherently religious, as well? Then spice up your denial with a few more pointed insults, since 'religious!' doesn't have enough bite?


You seem offended that anyone would dare suggest that YOUR beliefs are just like everyone else's.. a religio/philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe.

The pejoratve, 'religious!', should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for 'smug, religious hypocrites!!' ..lol!

What on earth are you talking about? I've not said anything even remotely like that in my post.

My point is that you are a hypocrite, because you claim your definition of atheism is based on "the dictionary" and call differing definitions to yours "elitest" and "redefining", but when you are shown dictionary definitions of atheism that DO differ from yours, you suddenly say that "you can pick and choose whatever definition you like" and that it is "far from" you "to demean what other people believe".

You demeaned people for using a dictionary definition of atheism while claiming to base your position on the dictionary, then denied that its worth demeaning somebody for their position and claimed that people are free to pick and choose their definitions. This makes you a hypocrite. You picked and chose your definition, then demeaned others for doing the same.

 

[usfan]

You demeaned people

That is just your perception, for being included in the 'religious!' descriptor. I do not consider the term demeaning, but you do, evidently. That proves my point. It is no longer a term to describe beliefs about the mysteries of the universe, but has devolved into a pejorative.. an 'us vs them!' groupthink divider, to elevate the elite, and demean the stupid and superstitious..

 

[Willamena]

Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm telling you that it isn't.

Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm telling you it is.

Adding unnecessary meaning to the word is just baggage.

Then why did you disagree with me when I said that that is not what atheism is (believing the claim of "no gods exist")?

Or were you perhaps just mistaken?

Atheism is, literally, "no gods"-ism, and commonly, disbelief in God or gods. It is not disbelief in a claim (about gods). In other words, it is not a belief in a claim.

See post #433 above, where Augustus said, "I believe that, on balance of probabilities, no gods exist and so I live my life accordingly."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is just your perception, for being included in the 'religious!' descriptor.

Now you're straight-up lying about what I said. The comments that I specifically deemed demeaning were:

"I prefer the dictionary definitions and common sense usage, instead of elitist redefinitions from the snowflake effect."

That is perfectly clear from the rest of that paragraph which you obviously missed out in order to lie about my position. The regular text is the part you quoted, the pertinent information is in bold:

"You demeaned people for using a dictionary definition of atheism while claiming to base your position on the dictionary, then denied that its worth demeaning somebody for their position and claimed that people are free to pick and choose their definitions. This makes you a hypocrite. You picked and chose your definition, then demeaned others for doing the same."

I have never once stated that to be included in the "religious" descriptor is demeaning.

I can only assume this is a deliberate attempt to lie about me and mis-characterize my position. I expect an immediate retraction and apology.

I do not consider the term demeaning, but you do, evidently. That proves my point. It is no longer a term to describe beliefs about the mysteries of the universe, but has devolved into a pejorative.. an 'us vs them!' groupthink divider, to elevate the elite, and demean the stupid and superstitious..

Why are you blatantly mis-characterizing my post? Why can't you respond to what I have actually written rather than formulating lies about it?

 

[usfan]

Why are you blatantly mis-characterizing my post? Why can't you respond to what I have actually written rather than formulating lies about it?

..probably better to end this 'discussion'. Clarification and terminological analysis was my goal here. Heated divisions over opinions and 'he said, she said!' bickerings do not aid in that goal.