Why is an athiest and athiest?

[RogerTheAtheist]

It could be because I'm tired, but I'm having a hard time understanding what the main question is. Is it why atheists are atheists or why some religious people don't think others should have freedoms? If the latter, are you referring to freedom to believe or freedom to, for example, get married to someone of the same gender?

 

[Horrorble]

It sort of follows that a lack of disbelief is prone to draw similar personalities, and indeed being an atheist influences my personality... if by personality you mean my character, my morals, my life, my sentiments about various aspects of the world.

I fail to see how people's taste for foods is anyhow equivalent to the aspects that make their entire worldviews.

I disagree, atheists do not have similar personalities...

 

[Desert Snake]

I disagree, atheists do not have similar personalities...

bingo. They run the spectrum of persomalities.

 

[Falvlun]

bingo. They run the spectrum of persomalities.

and so do theists, and vegetarians, and republicans, and heterosexuals, and Americans, and college graduates, etc etc. Doesn't make those labels any less useful though.

 

[Desert Snake]

and so do theists, and vegetarians, and republicans, and heterosexuals, and Americans, and college graduates, etc etc. Doesn't make those labels any less useful though.

Only useful for what it describes. (non-theism).

 

[Halcyon]

That's all that lumps theists together too. I mean, at least atheists are relatively homogenous in that they don't believe that gods exist. Compare that with the myriad of different sorts of gods that theists believe in.

Except of course that theists rarely lump themselves as "theists" unless it's in an argument with atheists. They're Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans, they share significant aspects of their lifestyle, diet, marriage views, political outlook etc etc, because their worldview has been largely dictated to them. With atheists all they share is that they don't believe in a deity. That's it.

So, if it's not a matter of life and death, you don't feel a need to defend your opinion? What if someone asks you it and then tells you you're wrong and going to hell?

I wouldn't care, there is no hell. What's the point in arguing about something I have no opinion about or belief in?
I could try to debunk their beliefs, but what has that got to do with atheism? The answer I suggest is nothing, there is nothing about being atheist that entails defending my position and certainly nothing about it that entails attempting to pull apart another's worldview to justify it.
If someone wanted to debate something I do believe in, like evolution, then that's a different kettle of fish. But I stand by my opinion that apologetics from atheists is like debating fashion for leprechauns, pointless and unnecessary.

It's simply a belief like any other, and a belief that happens to be in a minority. I don't know why you are so against this belief having a name.

It's not a belief. A belief is an idea that you are presented with and either accept or reject. Accept it and you then believe, reject it and nothing changes. You don't believe a variation of what has been presented to you, you just reject it.

If I present you with the idea that there is a purple imp who stands on your left shoulder and turns invisible whenever you try to look at him, you can accept what I'm saying and believe in your new purple friend or you can reject the idea and carry on as before. You haven't had to accept an alternative theory to the shoulder imp hypothesis that will influence the way you see the world from that point forward, you really can just reject it and forget about it.

Same with theism, there is no need to define your worldview in opposition to the great bearded sky imp, you can just say "pffft whatever" and get on with your life. If people want to turn their rejection of the theistic concept into a worldview in it's own right then, hey, go for it I'm not going to stop them and I'm not "so against it" either. I just think it's weird.

 

[arhys]

Why is an atheist and [sic] atheist?

God's grace, though freely offered to all, may be rejected; it is not God's will that everyone come to Christ and be saved. An atheist is an atheist because the Atonement, while sufficient for all, is efficient only for believers. You are taking an active part in the grand cosmic scheme, whether you like it or not.

 

[Falvlun]

Except of course that theists rarely lump themselves as "theists" unless it's in an argument with atheists. They're Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans, they share significant aspects of their lifestyle, diet, marriage views, political outlook etc etc, because their worldview has been largely dictated to them. With atheists all they share is that they don't believe in a deity. That's it.

I think you are seeing what you want to see. The only thing that theists share in common, across the board, is that they believe at least one god exists. The only thing that atheists share in common, across the board, is that they believe that no gods exist (or, depending on your definition, they lack the belief that gods exist.) That's it. That's basically how most labels work: they are about one aspect.

I wouldn't care, there is no hell. What's the point in arguing about something I have no opinion about or belief in?
I could try to debunk their beliefs, but what has that got to do with atheism? The answer I suggest is nothing, there is nothing about being atheist that entails defending my position and certainly nothing about it that entails attempting to pull apart another's worldview to justify it.
If someone wanted to debate something I do believe in, like evolution, then that's a different kettle of fish. But I stand by my opinion that apologetics from atheists is like debating fashion for leprechauns, pointless and unnecessary.

For someone who professes not to have any opinions about the matter, you seem to have an awful lot of opinions.

It's not a belief. A belief is an idea that you are presented with and either accept or reject. Accept it and you then believe, reject it and nothing changes. You don't believe a variation of what has been presented to you, you just reject it.

A belief in a negative is no different than a belief in a positive. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish between the two. Our belief system is made up of both things that we believe in and things that we don't.

If I present you with the idea that there is a purple imp who stands on your left shoulder and turns invisible whenever you try to look at him, you can accept what I'm saying and believe in your new purple friend or you can reject the idea and carry on as before. You haven't had to accept an alternative theory to the shoulder imp hypothesis that will influence the way you see the world from that point forward, you really can just reject it and forget about it.

And your rejection is a belief: a belief that the purple imp is a fabrication.

Same with theism, there is no need to define your worldview in opposition to the great bearded sky imp, you can just say "pffft whatever" and get on with your life. If people want to turn their rejection of the theistic concept into a worldview in it's own right then, hey, go for it I'm not going to stop them and I'm not "so against it" either. I just think it's weird.

Beliefs are not worldviews. They inform our worldviews, but they need not be an entire worldview unto themselves.

Your disbelief in the "great bearded sky imp" is one belief in many that is part of your worldview.

 

[crocusj]

All I said is that people have strong convictions about things other than religion. Religion isn't exclusive in that. Whatever else you are assuming, I haven't the slightest idea what it was.

Then I will explain and it is not an assumption, since you offered a frubal for the statement...

It's so goofy when you ask religious people why they don't allow you to do X,

This has nothing to do with conviction but with prohibition. I appreciate that everybody has views about all sorts of stuff but the words he used were "don't allow" ( not "disagree with)" and you fruballed him and therefore reinforced and agreed with his assertion that we should not argue against those who do not allow us to do something. I find this position unacceptable, we have a duty to argue against those who would deny us - or anyone - the same rights as they themselves have. It is NEVER...

goofy when you ask religious people why they don't allow you to do X,

I know I'm being picky but...well, shouldn't we ask?

 

[dust1n]

I disagree, atheists do not have similar personalities...

Huh? I didn't suggest all atheists have similar personalities. I said atheism tends to bring similar personalities together... all different types of similar personalities.

EDIT: At least it's my experience that atheists tend to hang out with other atheists and religious folk tend to hang out with religious folk of the same kind. Not that all groups of Christians of atheists are alike.

 

[Halcyon]

Deleted: Forget I brought it up.

 

[Falvlun]

Um, that's what I said. You brought up "theism" as a cohesive category in opposition to atheism as a strawman to knock down, not I.

Not sure what you are saying here. You claimed that it was silly to have a label for atheists when there is nothing to bind them together as a group-- they are a rather diverse bunch-- and I countered that that is true of basically any label, including theism.

Do you still think that it is silly to have a label for atheists?

A throwaway comment designed to give readers the impression that I'm a hypocrite, is that really the most appropriate response you could come up with?

I just find it strange that you are arguing that there is nothing for atheists to argue about. It comes across as an oxymoron.

False dichotomy. A belief is a positive assertion in the veracity of a concept's truth, non-belief is simply the lack of that assertion, nothing more coherent than that.

You like just throwing names of fallacies out there just to see what's gonna stick, don't you?

Tell me, what is fundamental difference between these two opinions that makes the former an opinion and the latter a mere "rejection":
Fluoride in drinking water is beneficial.
Fluoride in drinking water is not beneficial.

Why are rejections not considered beliefs? After all, a belief is merely an opinion, and if you reject something, that is just as much your opinion on something as if you had accepted it.

There is no substantial difference between the two.

And your belief that my rejection of the belief in a purple imp is a belief in the fabricated nature of the purple imp is a belief that I do not share. I don't believe in the antithesis of your belief that my rejection of the belief in a purple imp is a belief in the fabricated nature of the purple imp, I just reject it.

I think you are mistaken, out of some strange desire to avoid being implicated of having a belief. I do not understand this motivation, that many atheists seem to possess.

Exactly. So why make atheism, a simple rejection of a presented concept into a defining aspect of a worldview that has even been described as a minority community?

Who has said that it is a defining aspect of a worldview? It is a belief that is held by a minority of people, and as noted above, it is a belief that binds together all who hold it into as cohesive a group as most other labels that are dependent upon one characteristic.

Again, your belief that my disbelief in the "great bearded sky imp" is a belief, is a belief that I do not hold to.

Is your rejection of geocentrism similarly not a belief? Is your rejection of creationism similarly not a belief?

Your position is not a tenable one, I am afraid. There is absolutely no difference between believing a positive position and adhering to a negative one. They are both beliefs that inform your worldview.

 

[McBell]

Tell me, what is fundamental difference between these two opinions that makes the former an opinion and the latter a mere "rejection":
Fluoride in drinking water is beneficial.
Fluoride in drinking water is not beneficial.

seems to me that this is a strawman.

You left off the belief part:
I believe that Fluoride in drinking water is beneficial.
I believe that Fluoride in drinking water is not beneficial.
I lack a belief on the benefits of fluoride in drinking water.

Merely presenting the first two is in fact a false dichotomy, for it leaves out the third option, which is not an acceptance of the benefits nor is it a denial of the benefits.

Lacking a belief is NOT the same as disbelieving, though you seem to think that it is.

 

[Falvlun]

seems to me that this is a strawman.

You left off the belief part:
I believe that Fluoride in drinking water is beneficial.
I believe that Fluoride in drinking water is not beneficial.
I lack a belief on the benefits of fluoride in drinking water.

Merely presenting the first two is in fact a false dichotomy, for it leaves out the third option, which is not an acceptance of the benefits nor is it a denial of the benefits.

I agree that that is a third option, but that is not what halycon was saying. He was saying that rejection of a position is not a belief-- basically that holding a negative claim to be true cannot be considered a belief.

Lacking a belief is NOT the same as disbelieving, though you seem to think that it is.

I think that in most cases, lack of belief is accompanied by the disbelief.

I think that lack of belief (by itself) occurs really only under these circumstances:
I have no idea what you are talking about (ignorance).
I don't care about what you are talking about (apathy).
I don't know and I have no opinion. (agnosticism, in the popular, rather than technical sense).
I have no opinion.

If you reject a belief-- if you claim that a belief is not true-- then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have an opinion about a belief, as to its likelihood, then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have thought about a belief, then you do not merely have a lack of belief under the first two instances (ignorance and apathy).

If you are agnostic in the technical sense, but have an opinion about which is more probable, you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have any opinion about it at all, then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

Does this clarify my position?

 

[McBell]

I agree that that is a third option, but that is not what halycon was saying. He was saying that rejection of a position is not a belief-- basically that holding a negative claim to be true cannot be considered a belief.


I think that in most cases, lack of belief is accompanied by the disbelief.

I think that lack of belief (by itself) occurs really only under these circumstances:
I have no idea what you are talking about (ignorance).
I don't care about what you are talking about (apathy).
I don't know and I have no opinion. (agnosticism, in the popular, rather than technical sense).
I have no opinion.

If you reject a belief-- if you claim that a belief is not true-- then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have an opinion about a belief, as to its likelihood, then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have thought about a belief, then you do not merely have a lack of belief under the first two instances (ignorance and apathy).

If you are agnostic in the technical sense, but have an opinion about which is more probable, you do not merely have a lack of belief.

If you have any opinion about it at all, then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

Does this clarify my position?

yes it does.
Thank you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you reject a belief-- if you claim that a belief is not true-- then you do not merely have a lack of belief.

Actually, that's exactly the same thing. Rejecting a claim does not mean you believe the claim is false, it simply means you don't believe the claim is true. Rejecting the claim "all flans are green" does not mean you believe that no flans are green, in the same way that rejecting the claim "God exists" does not mean you believe "God does not exist". "Reject" doesn't mean "believe the opposite", it literally means you don't accept the proposition being made.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, that's exactly the same thing. Rejecting a claim does not mean you believe the claim is false, it simply means you don't believe the claim is true. Rejecting the claim "all flans are green" does not mean you believe that no flans are green,

You changed it there. Rejecting the claim "all flans are green" means that you do not believe that the statement "all flans are green" is true. You may or may not believe that some flans are green.

in the same way that rejecting the claim "God exists" does not mean you believe "God does not exist". "Reject" doesn't mean "believe the opposite", it literally means you don't accept the proposition being made.

That is not what I am saying, though.

If you reject a claim-- if you claim that another claim is not true-- then you are making a claim in itself.

So, if you reject the claim that God exists, you do not necessarily hold the claim that God does not exist. But you do hold the belief, the claim, that the statement "God exists" is not true. It is still a belief, a position, an opinion.

And to elaborate, in the case where there is only two possible choices, then yes, a rejection of one choice almost certainly means that you must hold the other.

This is because rejection is an active thing. It is not passive. It is also absolute; there is no maybe. See my post about lack of belief. If you are rejecting, then you cannot be said to be ignorant or apathetic about the subject. You cannot be said to have no opinion about the subject. You cannot be said to be agnostic in the popular sense (since such an agnostic would say that it might be true and it might not be true; they cannot say that it is not true-- reject the claim-- and still be an agnostic.)

I'm actually pretty hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which someone who rejects a belief, in which only two options are available, can truly be said not to have the other belief.

Go back to your flans. Say I reject the belief that all flans are green. This means that I must accept the belief that not all flans are green. That is the only other option.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You changed it there. Rejecting the claim "all flans are green" means that you do not believe that the statement "all flans are green" is true. You may or may not believe that some flans are green.

Exactly, which is why saying "I reject the claim that all flans are green" is not a contrary claim.

That is not what I am saying, though.

If you reject a claim-- if you claim that another claim is not true-

Again, that's not what reject means. Reject means "not accept", it does not mean "hold it to be untrue". There's a difference between saying "I don't accept that claim" and "I think your claim is wrong".

- then you are making a claim in itself.

What claim is being made?

So, if you reject the claim that God exists, you do not necessarily hold the claim that God does not exist. But you do hold the belief, the claim, that the statement "God exists" is not true. It is still a belief, a position, an opinion.

But rejection is not a claim. There isn't a claim being made other than "I don't accept your claim", which is not a belief - it's the absence of one.

And to elaborate, in the case where there is only two possible choices, then yes, a rejection of one choice almost certainly means that you must hold the other.

That's a false dichotomy. God either exists or doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that a person who doesn't claim God exists must therefore automatically take the position of claiming that God does not exist. Again, there's a difference between saying "reject the claim that X is true" and "I claim that X is false". Again, going back to my flan analogy, your exact same rule of "only two possible choices" still applies. You either accept the claim that all flans are green, or you reject the claim that all flans are green. It doesn't matter if you think some flans are green, or most flans are green, or if you believe all flans are blue, or even if you believe flans don't exist. With regards to that specific claim the only option is to accept it for whatever reason, or reject it for whatever reason. In both instances, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not rejecting it. This is why it's important to establish that rejecting a claim is not claim.

This is because rejection is an active thing.

It doesn't make any difference whether it's "active" or not. It's still not a claim.

It is not passive. It is also absolute; there is no maybe. See my post about lack of belief. If you are rejecting, then you cannot be said to be ignorant or apathetic about the subject. You cannot be said to have no opinion about the subject. You cannot be said to be agnostic in the popular sense (since such an agnostic would say that it might be true and it might not be true; they cannot say that it is not true-- reject the claim-- and still be an agnostic.)

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not rejection of a claim is a claim. It has absolutely no bearing on the subject. It doesn't matter how well educated you are on a particular subject, a rejection of a particular claim - even if you reject the claim on good grounds - is still not a claim in and of itself.

I'm actually pretty hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which someone who rejects a belief, in which only two options are available, can truly be said not to have the other belief.

God's existence is a good one, obviously.

Go back to your flans. Say I reject the belief that all flans are green. This means that I must accept the belief that not all flans are green. That is the only other option.

But that's a different claim. We're dealing with one position regarding a single claim, and that claim is "God exists". It doesn't matter if I choose to believe in fairies, leprechauns, or even choose to believe that no God exists. The rejection of the claim is not a claim or a belief regardless.

 

[Falvlun]

Again, that's not what reject means. Reject means "not accept", it does not mean "hold it to be untrue". There's a difference between saying "I don't accept that claim" and "I think your claim is wrong".

What does it mean to "not accept" a claim? What are you not accepting?

Note:
I am not saying that agnosticism or lack of belief is impossible.

Will address the rest of your post later.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What does it mean to "not accept" a claim? What are you not accepting?

The truth of the claim. I thought that was obvious?