Comment of the Week: Atheists Speaking Out
That's the current situation, at least for a great many nonbelievers, and it's a situation that won't change one bit so long as atheists accept it with comment. Believers are already comfortable with this situation because it reflects and reinforces what they take for granted. Change will only occur if nonbelievers speak up and speak out. It may not always be a situation where you feel comfortable speaking out, but risking the disapproval of religious theists isn't something you can avoid if you are going to be true to yourself.
I don't want to kick people while they're down; but if you don't speak up when theists give you religious platitudes, what do you expect them to say?
Unless corrected, they are going to continue doing this, to you and everyone else, for every event that ever happens; and they will continue to think there is nothing wrong with doing so. They will inflict the same crap on others that they have just inflicted on you. Society will continue, without improving.
Hearing theists talking about their god and their bogus afterlife when you have lost a loved one is extremely trivialising of your loss; it sounds like: "I'm sorry for your loss, but at least you can take comfort knowing that he's in a better place with Santa, and will be able to open Christmas presents for eternity."
That's not comforting, it's infuriating.
The death of a family member is an excellent time for letting others know you are an atheist. Are they then going to berate you? No, because you are grieving a death. Even most Christians aren't that cruel.
If you use situations as a teaching opportunity, then people may change, and stop being so cavalier about projecting their beliefs onto others.
Is this easy to do? Depends on who you are. I've had no problem doing this at funerals I've attended.
Friend says some religious platitude at a funeral."Well, I don't share that belief, but it means a lot to me to know that you care, and are here as my friend."How hard is this stuff to say? Not very, especially if your emotions are already pretty open and honest because of the situation.
"Well, I guess that would be nice, if it were true."
"You may think that's what happens, but I don't. What I need right now is your support."
"Well, I don't share that belief, but I'm glad it brings you comfort".
You can use this in other conversations.
Friend goes on about how gawd knew certain friends were strong, so gave them a handicapped child [way to go, Yahweh]. "Well, I don't share that belief, but it certainly must be challenging for them to do xyz. . ."
When they express surprise that I don't share their views, I politely say, "25% of Canadians are atheists. I'm one of them". I love the opportunity to inform another theist of how many of us there are.
[original post]
It's almost certain that some religious believers will be bothered by even the mildest of statements from nonbelievers, but that's a risk atheists have to be willing to take. Where believers are simply "sharing" the "good news," atheists are "forcing" their atheism on others, being "rude" and "disrespectful." We keep seeing believers who insist that others "respect" their beliefs by not disagreeing and not being sufficiently obsequious, but atheists have no obligation to remain silent while believers are free to dominate the conversation.
Comments
>It’s almost certain that some religious believers will be bothered by even the mildest of statements from nonbelievers…
No doubt it’s perfectly acceptable to promote what they believe at such an event, but for someone who believes something different, I’m sure it is rude of them to voice their contrary view. There’s no real logic to that, but there you go.
Meanwhile, I’m a huge advocate of saying what is necessary, as civilly and as straightforward as possible. I don’t like to see insults or angry exchanges. But I also don’t see why a person can’t speak their mind in a polite way, without apology.
I don’t need to force my view. But certainly I shouldn’t feel ashamed or abashed about simply saying what I think in a non-abusive way. And if a person opens with a statement of their religious opinions, then I assume they’re setting a precedent that religious opinions are welcome in this dialogue. That’s what they’ve just demonstrated by sharing their religious view with me, unsolicited. Surely I can then share mine with them?
I enjoy listening to one atheist speak on behalf of all atheist as if atheism was one unified belief instead of a widely diverse group of cells that include polar opposite positions on all subjects except “whether there is a God.”
The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position rather than standing behind the virtues of their own beliefs. As the owner of the blog is quick to point out, morality is an issue theists are quick to point out and he did a piece where he did just that.
The atheist will point out that there isn’t much statistical difference between the atheist and the theist. However, this argument is a red herring.
Morality is based on what is right and what is wrong. The debate about morality, therefore, has to be based in how “right” is determined to be right and how “wrong” is determined to be wrong.
The theist position is established by the Creator (God). Right is separated from wrong by what the Creator designed the creation to do. The legitimate question of the atheist would be to ask, “How could the creator create so many creations that didn’t do as it was created to do?” But right and wrong would be separated by the purpose of the creation.
The atheist’s position is established by evolution. With creation being an un-intelligent sequence of events, the question the theist legitimately asks the atheist is, “How is ‘right’ separated from ‘wrong’?”
If one believes in the “survival of the fittest,” then who has power determines “right” from “wrong.” And we see how morality changes as those in power change. So to ask the atheist, “How does one become more moral?” one would expect the answer to be, “Be more powerful.” And on occasion, you might here, “He who has the gold makes the rules.” Do atheists want to say that right and wrong are determined by power? Is it by instinct? How does the atheist determine what is right?
The second problematic area for the atheist is cause and effect. If there is a “Right” and a “Wrong”, then right should lead down one path and wrong down the other.
Yet, from the atheist’s position right and wrong come to the same conclusion. Without different endings, where is the difference between right and wrong?
Sure, there are temporary differences or differences in appearance like 1 + 1 appears to be different than 8 / 4. But in spite of their differences, they are really the same. And so, what are the true differences in outcomes for doing right than from doing wrong?
From the atheist position, everything is like a sandcastle standing in front of the incoming tide of time. And in time, EVERYTHING a person does is washed away. Nothing is left. Therefore, what role does morality really play as there is ultimately no difference between doing right and doing wrong ….whatever that was decided to be.
The atheist’s position is from ashes to ashes and from dust to dust. We start and conclude at the same point. How can morality exist when right and wrong begin and conclude at the same spot.
If “All we are is dust in the wind.” (Kansas), then what is the difference between right and wrong.
I am interested in your answers.
DS M
It comes down to this. 1. Act in your own best interest. 2.Know what is truly is in your own best interest.
If you are a merchant, it is in your selfish best interest to treat your customers fairly to keep them coming back to you. You will go nowhere, if you do not have the trust of others.
If you are married, and you cheat on your wife, you will lose her love and trust. This would not be in your best interest. Anothe example: Saddam Hussein didn’t have a good understanding of what was in his best interest. What did it get him? a rope!! This is where morals come from. Acting in your own best interest, and understanding what you best interest is Simple, huh? Works for me.
DS M You said:
(We start and conclude at the same point. How can morality exist when right and wrong begin and conclude at the same spot.) I wish to clarify a little more.
We start and conclude at the same point. True. But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude. And while we are doing, we are learning that life is what we do while we are making other plans. I read that somewhere.
Can you point to someone doing that?
So why are you treating atheism as if it had just one position on morality?
So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.
First you object to atheists trying to speak for all atheists, then you generalize about all atheists.
Or at least they claim it is. If there are no gods, then the theist position is established in exactly the same way that the atheist position is, but theists simply attribute what they are doing to gods.
Also, not all theists believe in a single creator god, so your generalization about theists is as well-founded as your generalization about atheists.
Feel free to show how.
That makes as much sense as “believing in” gravity.
Feel free to show how, but without straw man claims about evolution and what you imagine “the atheist” says.
Why should it?
I don’t believe you are. If you were, you would have asked sincere questions instead of contradictory, question-begging and straw man generalizations. Instead, I think you’re just looking to have your personal prejudices validated.
to DS M
I tried to read all of your post, but my brain seeped out my ears and ran away
on the plus side, I may now be able to accept your “arguments”
“And we see how morality changes as those in power change. So to ask the atheist, “How does one become more moral?” one would expect the answer to be, “Be more powerful.” And on occasion, you might here, “He who has the gold makes the rules.””
The irony of the matter is that this has been shown to be true throughout history. As those in power change, the morality and rules change. Who has been in power throughout most of history? Atheists? No.
View the question with this thought in mind:
Humans created god in the first place.
Therefore, humans created their own morality to begin with then pinned that to whatever religious rites were in practice at that time. Over time, as humans came into different problems or issues, morality changed.
Theists attribute their morality to a god they created, fundamentally making the difference between a theist and an atheist very small. Atheist and theist’ morality is a result of their personal experiences and understanding and the times in which they live.
Atheists and theists just don’t agree on how those personal experiences or the time they live in came about.
**I am interested in your answers.
*I don’t believe you are.
There is nothing more powerful than accusing a theist of lying in the first exchange. I have come to expect these maneuvers from atheist who want to demonstrate their superiority.
If I may respond in the language of the atheist….”You don’t know me. Your response is from the baggage you carry from dealing with other theists. So you are responding to a stereotype but not to me….”
Or “You are intolerant of those who believe differently than you. Why do you feel the need to condemn someone simply because your religion isn’t the same as yours?”
Austin Cline, I do listen. I am interested in seeing how the atheist responds to the questions the atheist is normally posing. Understand, if the atheist can’t do it better than the theist, then on what grounds to you condemn the theist?
**I enjoy listening to one atheist speak on behalf of all atheist
*Can you point to someone doing that?
I came to this website for atheists. At no point did the website mention the different groups and beliefs of atheists. Without specifying a specific group of atheist, all atheist are included.
**The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position rather than standing behind the virtues of their own beliefs.
“So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.
By this logic, the theist can say, “So long as atheism cannot be justified, theism is justified…bringing back the need for each position to justify itself by its own merits
*First you object to atheists trying to speak for all atheists, then you generalize about all atheists.
…As did you. Please model the correct way so I can correctly follow you.
**The atheist’s position is established by evolution.
*Feel free to show how.
Are you saying you don’t believe in science? If you don’t believe in God and you don’t believe in the science of evolution, then how do you believe life came to be?… I would need to know your belief before I could respond.
**If one believes in the “survival of the fittest,”
*That makes as much sense as “believing in” gravity.
So you don’t believe in gravity? Would you want to climb a tall building, make this statement, and then prove your point? I don’t think so.
**The second problematic area for the atheist is cause and effect. If there is a “Right” and a “Wrong”, then right should lead down one path and wrong down the other.
*Why should it?
If you don’t have a positive and negative charge to the words, then the only remaining option is neutral. Yet your words are charged and not neutral. Why is that?
Neutral means there is no difference between my answers and yours…but you maintain there is. How can you maintain that there is a difference between my beliefs and your beliefs and that there is no difference between my beliefs and your beliefs at the same time?
*Ron said: We start and conclude at the same point. True. But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude. And while we are doing, we are learning that life is what we do while we are making other plans.
Plans to do what? Wouldn’t not making plans be an equally acceptable answer? If so, why spend the energy making plans?
Ron says: It comes down to this. 1. Act in your own best interest.
I agree with this. I would think that:
If I am “fair” and they are not, then I am at a disadvantage.
It would be to my advantage not being better at not being fair as then I would have the advantage over those who act unfairly as well as those who act fairly.
Thank you for your responses and I look forward to hearing from you again.
If you don’t want to be treated as insincere, then don’t use language which contradicts your stated intentions. You definitely shouldn’t use language that contradicts your intentions even after it’s been pointed out to you how your language contradicts your intentions — that sends the message that, at the very best, you don’t care how you sound. In that best-case scenario, complaints about people pointing out the insincerity behind your contradictions rings especially hollow.
So if you want to be treated as sincere, you need to act sincere and not simply protest that you are sincere. This means, when insincerity is pointed out, you actually move to correct it instead of complaining about the observation and continuing ahead as before. That is exactly the sort of behavior that screams out “I”m being insincere.”
Really. That’s why you continue to generalize about atheists even after I point out you’re doing it. That’s listening?
Yes, you did. Now, can you point to anyone who speaks on behalf of all atheists?
A theist who says this doesn’t understand basic logic. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and, as such, is the starting default position. So long as the claim that gods exist is not justified, not bothering to believe in gods is automatically justified.
I have yet to generalize about all atheists — their beliefs, their thoughts, their statements, etc.
No. I’m saying you should support your claim that “the atheist’s position is established by evolution.”
No, I accept it’s existence. The phrase “believe in” implies faith.
True. Now, can you answer my question?
Wanting to keep these talks moving, I have limited myself to the 2 points I came here to get answers.
Point 1:
DS M: So you don’t believe in gravity?
Austin: No, I accept it’s existence. The phrase “believe in” implies faith.
DS M: So what makes you different? Why don’t you need to have faith but everyone else does?
If you thought about it, you would know untested theories can be called facts. You talk about theists doing this all the time. However, so do atheists.
Being human, …and not god…there are things we don’t know. Assumptions are made and dots are connected that simply aren’t true. Apparently, you have not considered what to do about these circumstances common to the human condition.
True intellects will tell you that the more they know, the more they know they don’t know. Are you willing to state that you know everything?
If not, then you will need to confess, like the rest of us, that there are some things you are calling true that are actually false and some things you are calling false that are actually true…. if you were able to tell the difference, then why would you confess that you don’t know everything?
So yes, we live by faith according to our beliefs because we are unable to distinguish truth from fiction is many situations.
Point 2:
DS M: If you don’t have a positive and negative charge to the words, then the only remaining option is neutral.
Austin: True.
So how is it that your words have a charge? Shouldn’t you be neutral? All paths lead to dust so on what basis can you argue that I am wrong?
I will get to the same place with my beliefs as you do with your beliefs according so what difference does it make if I keep my beliefs or become an atheist?
Will I be do any thing lasting because I became an atheist or can you explain why it is so important that I come to grips with the fact that my life is like a sandcastle standing against the incoming tide of time. Everything I will ever do is washed away…just like everything you do will be washed away.
Tell me, why is it important that this belief becomes a fact for me?
I came to the atheist’s website and found the blog as I could not come up with this answer. Please help me understand what Ron said:
“We start and conclude at the same point. True. But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude.”
How can the middle have value when the beginning and endings don’t have value? Mathematically stated:
If A = C and B evolves from A and concludes in C, then how is
A < B > C? Why wouldn’t it be A = B = C?
Did I say I was?
I have no idea how this relates to the question you have refused twice now to answer.
DS M: If one believes in the “survival of the fittest….”
Austin: That makes as much sense as “believing in” gravity.
DS M: So you don’t believe in gravity?
Austin: No, I accept it’s existence. The phrase “believe in” implies faith.
DS M: So what makes you different? Why don’t you need to have faith but everyone else does?
Austin: Did I say I was?
DS M: So you are saying: “You have faith like everyone else and are now totally agree to what I have said earlier?” Your responses aren’t making any sense.
It appears that when you don’t like a line of reason, you make it appear nonsensical so you don’t have to deal with the issue.
In my research, I found that
***So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.***
is the way atheists defend their faith. I acknowledged this in my opening post. *** The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position rather than standing behind the virtues of their own beliefs.*** This also proves I do listen.
In the second paragraph, I stated, *** The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position rather than standing behind the virtues of their own beliefs.***
Therefore, it was no surprise that Austin would provide an exact quote of this strawman argument:
***So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.***
Atheist prefer this strategy because they can view their beliefs as facts. Austin verbalizes this dislike in when he said, ***The phrase “believe in” implies faith.***
The reason is that Atheist don’t like to embrace their own faith is logical:
A = B = C. Dust/death = Life = Dust/death
They would rather say that life is greater than Dust/death .*** (The greater sign does not come through on your blog)
as Ron said, *** We start and conclude at the same point. True. But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude
This is the atheist’s statement of faith…
as logic would say:
A = B = C. Dust/death = Life = Dust/death
If you start and conclude at the exactly the same point, how can you prove you ever leave that point? Where is the evidence?
It certainly isn’t in the dust….and all life transforms into dust.
Therefore, why wouldn’t the atheist argue that we are like water changing into ice and then back into water? Or where is the proof that *** But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude.***
What evidence can the atheist provide that proves this point? If there is no proof, then it is a statement of faith.
And if all one does is change appearances like water turning into ice or steam, then why would the Atheist find the need to “Speak Out?”
Here is the reason I wrote on this blog:
Austin writes: ***Atheists are frequently accused of being “militant” and “intolerant” for speaking out at all about their opinions on religion or theism, but it’s a common experience for atheists to be treated quite disparagingly by religious theists. Believers themselves are probably unaware of this simply because they treat their beliefs as a “given” and as the “norm,” so religious platitudes from them are supposed to be treated by the rest of us as natural and appropriate.***
Now tell me this isn’t a catch 22 for the theist.
On one hand:
***So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.***
On the other hand,
atheists don’t want to talk about their faith and educate them about the ***virtues of their own beliefs***
So from the theist’s position, how can I learn about the atheist’s position if all the atheist wants to do is to disprove the theist’s position?
The conversation sound something like:
Atheist: What you said back there, I don’t agree with and I found the comment offensive.
Theist: What did I say?
Atheist: The problem with you theists is you unaware of other beliefs so you take yours as a given.
Theist: I was unaware. Will you tell me about your beliefs?
Atheist: I don’t have beliefs.
Theist: If you don’t have beliefs, how was I unaware….
Atheist: How can you believe what you believe?
Theist: But wasn’t this conversation about educating me about the atheist’s beliefs…I mean theories?
Atheist: This is the second time I have asked you about how you can believe in what you believe.
Theist: But isn’t this about making me aware of your position so I am not offensive…
Atheist: All you theists are alike. You don’t want to answer my questions and would prefer be intolerant of others and ignore the facts.
Theist: “But what are the facts” the theist says to himself as the atheist has left.
Austin: I have no idea how this relates to the question you have refused twice now to answer.
DS M: I understand that you are attempting to steer me away from my original question. If you could stay on topic and teach me about atheism, it would be helpful.
I would appreciate any explanations you might have.
What you have in quotes is neither grammatical nor coherent, but it also isn’t even remotely related to anything I have said. What I have said is this:
I accept the existence of gravity. I don’t “believe in” gravity because that would imply that I “have faith in” gravity, which makes no sense.
This is not a general statement about faith, however. Faith is to complicated of a subject to make generations about in so few words.
Now, what is there in those responses which you have so much trouble comprehending?
You haven’t offered anything that I would call a “line of reasoning.” You have made a myriad of assumptions and generalizations, all of which have been challenged and none of which you have even tried to support. Instead, you just ask questions and then launch into more assumptions from the answers you get — and when those assumptions are denied, you complain that things don’t make sense.
Well, maybe what’s giving you trouble is the fact that your assumptions aren’t matching reality. Maybe what you need to do is stop making so many assumptions about others and trying to fit them into your personal ideology.
It proves quite the contrary. First, it proves you don’t know what atheism is because atheism is not a claim that can be “proven” or “disproven.” Second, it proves you aren’t paying attention to the fact that you used the word “prove” whereas I used the word “justified” — they mean very different things. If you were listening, you’d have picked up on this.
That, of course, renders the rest of what you said as little more than further nonsense — it’s all based on your personal straw man assumptions about atheism and atheists than on anything like reality.
If you wanted to learn about atheism, you’d have cliched on the links which are clearly marked for providing you with basic information about atheism.
I’m trying to steer you back to one of your original assertions. I challenged it and now, for the third time, you have refused to answer a very basic question about it. This only further demonstrates the accuracy of my original conclusion that you aren’t being sincere. A sincere person is interested in clearing up misunderstandings and explaining their assertions. An insincere person just drops assertions around like so many cow pies, without any interest in offering support, evidence, justification, or explanation for what they have said.
Astin: I’m trying to steer you back to one of your original assertions. I challenged it and now, for the third time, you have refused to answer a very basic question about it.
DS M: Let’s review my two original assertions which I will pull from my first post and have addressed in each of my posts:
1. If one believes in the “survival of the fittest,” then who has power dtermines “right” from “wrong.”***
2. ***right and wrong come to the same conclusion. Without different endings, where is the difference between right and wrong?
Sure, there are temporary differences or differences in appearance like 1 + 1 appears to be different than 8 / 4. But in spite of their differences, they are really the same. And so, what are the true differences in outcomes for doing right than from doing wrong?***
Austin: ***You have made a myriad of assumptions and generalizations, all of which have been challenged and none of which you have even tried to support.***
DS M: Actually, I have. I have never heard an alternative to believing in evolution and no alternative has been offered. What else am I to do?
Austin: If you wanted to learn about atheism, you’d have cliched on the links which are clearly marked for providing you with basic information about atheism.
DS M: I did. That is why I posted. It didn’t address my premise.
Austin: I accept the existence of gravity. I don’t “believe in” gravity because that would imply that I “have faith in” gravity, which makes no sense.
DS M: You can’t actually say you know all there is to know about gravity as you can’t say you know all the pulls of gravity and how it effects you. So you believe there are forces at work.
Quoting them is not “reviewing” them. I’m waiting for you to support them.
Please point me then to the place where you supported your assertion that “the atheist’s position is established by evolution.” First, though, you might want to explain and support your assumption about what you think “the atheist’s position” is.
Really? Which articles did you read, and why did you choose this blog post to comment on?
None of that is the same as “having faith in” gravity.
“If one believes in the ’survival of the fittest’…
If? If? Please point to examples where being less fit for an ecological niche enhances survival. Or are you simply saying fitness is not related to survival? Do you believe whales could live on dry land if they only tried because being fit for an environment has noting to do with survival? Please state your theory clearly and provide evidence.
“…then who has the power determines ‘right’ from ‘wrong’”
Please define “power”. Are you referring to moral authority, legal authority, what?
DS M: “If one believes in the ’survival of the fittest’…
John: If? If? Please point to examples where being less fit for an ecological niche enhances survival. Or are you simply saying fitness is not related to survival? Do you believe whales could live on dry land if they only tried because being fit for an environment has noting to do with survival? Please state your theory clearly and provide evidence.
DS M: I agree with you. Austin doesn’t.
What Is Atheism? Narrow vs. Broad Definitions of Atheism
Why Do Atheists Define Atheism Broadly as the Lack of Belief in Gods?
By Austin Cline, About.com
Last paragragh Austin says:
Atheism implies no further belief system — it implies no beliefs about politics, no philosophy, no beliefs about society, ********no beliefs about science, *********no beliefs about religion,**** or even that the person is irreligious (because some religions are atheistic). Atheists vary as much in their beliefs and attitudes as theists do. If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.
The “broad definition” is so broad, it fails to actually define atheism other than
1. It is a belief system.
2. You know only that “he or she lacks belief in gods”
So I have come to learn more about atheism. It’s a common experience for theists to be treated quite disparagingly by religious atheists. Most atheists want to say that atheism isn’t a belief system but that isn’t how Austin has defined atheism.
The second is correct; the first is false. I’d love to know how you got from the quoted paragraph the idea that I define atheism as a belief system.
If that’s the only piece you’ve read on atheism here, you haven’t read nearly enough. Strange that a person who professes to be so interested in what atheism is has ignored almost all of the basic documents about atheism and athests.
1st point:
DS M: The atheist’s position is established by evolution.
Austin: Feel free to show how.
John: If? If? Please point to examples where being less fit for an ecological niche enhances survival. Or are you simply saying fitness is not related to survival? Do you believe whales could live on dry land if they only tried because being fit for an environment has noting to do with survival? Please state your theory clearly and provide evidence.
DS M: When you two have atheism worked out, please let me know. I would like to be informed so the theist isn’t blamed for being unaware when the real issue is that atheists haven’t come to an agreement of what atheism is.
2nd point:
As I said in the second paragraph of my first post: “The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position rather than standing behind the virtues of their own beliefs.”
Austin, you confirmed this by saying in your first response, “So long as theism cannot be justified, atheism is justified.
The atheist”
and in your definition
Definition of Atheism: Dictionaries, Atheists, Others Define Atheism
***What is the definition of atheism? How do atheists define atheism? How do dictionaries, standard and online, define atheism? There is some disagreement about the definition of atheism and it is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists….(5 paragraphs later)…Atheists lack belief in the existence of any gods external to human minds.***
Austin, I have proved my understanding of atheism by using your website.
3rd point:
DS M: So you don’t believe in gravity?
Austin: No, I accept it’s existence. The phrase “believe in” implies faith.
DS M: The exact quote is found in my response to John. You sais, “Atheists vary as much in their beliefs and attitudes as theists do.”
Since you established that Atheists do have beliefs, how is faith in those beliefs not required and why can’t these beliefs be part of the definition of atheism?
As you said, “The truth is that there are so many misconceptions which both sides have about the other that the facts can get lost.”
Please explain these facts to me so I don’t get lost.
If you can establish any contradiction between the comments made by Jim and those made by myself, please do so. Otherwise, should I not conclude that you are deliberately raising red herrings in order to avoid both of our questions?
You might want to consider the fact that if some atheists agree with some scientifically proven conclusion, this does not mean in any way that “the atheist’s position is established” by that conclusion. You’d be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn’t accept that the earth obits the sun, but you’d also be hard pressed to demonstrate that “the atheist’s position is established by the heliocentric model of the solar system.”
So, because I point out some common errors made by theists, and correct those errors, this “proves” that “The typical atheist attempts to prove atheism by disproving the theist’s position”? Feel free to establish a logical connection between the first and the second, if you can.
1. The word “atheist” is not a proper noun and as such should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
2. We can also establish that people with moustaches have beliefs. Does this mean that “faith in those beliefs” is required of those people and also part of the definition of having a moustache? If you can understand why the answer to both is “no,” then you’ll understand why the same answer applies to atheism. Atheism is the state of not having any belief in the existence of any gods. Any beliefs which are compatible with that state do not necessarily derive from that state and, therefore, are not required of all who fit that category.
That’s the purpose of the basic documents about atheism — documents which you do not appear to have spent time reading.
Why should an atheist explain why he is an atheist, he or she justs is, end of story.
As an atheist I do not believe in stories from the past I just see what one human being can do to another, so God obviously does not work. I really do not believe religion has relevance in todays life. Here in most parts of the country no one wants to know if you believe in god or not, they just get on with their lives.
When poverty and cruelty end I will believe in a God, but i know this will never come about in our life time
So just care and be good to others’ and not hurt anyone.
In your article, “Comment of the Week: Atheists Speaking Out” Tuesday August 12, 2008 you said:
“Atheists are frequently accused of being “militant” and “intolerant” for speaking out at all about their opinions on religion or theism, but it’s a common experience for atheists to be treated quite disparagingly by religious theists. Believers themselves are probably unaware of this simply because they treat their beliefs as a “given” and as the “norm,” so religious platitudes from them are supposed to be treated by the rest of us as natural and appropriate.
In this paragraph,
a. You spoke on behalf of all atheists without proving that atheists are actually “accused.” There was no documentation demonstrating the # occurrences or whether it was limited to a specific area or time period.
b. Without documenting you spoke with any theist, you made an assumption for theists about all the undocumented offenses.
Your article doesn’t measure up to the standards you demand from me.
Let me respond to you at the level of documentation that you are able to speak:
When speaking with an atheist, it is important to first discover what type of atheist the person is. As you said, “If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.”
Austin, you jumped to the wrong conclusion when you said, “Believers themselves are probably unaware of this simply because they treat their beliefs as a “given”.
The challenge of speaking with an atheist is: “what type of atheist am I speaking? What type of atheist are you? I don’t know. But John (not Jim) is an atheist that believes in evolution.
Austin: ***That’s the purpose of the basic documents about atheism — documents which you do not appear to have spent time reading.***
The flaw in this statement is that there are no articles written at the atheism level. Or show me the pool of articles that fit your definition “If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.”
#20 Austin: ***should I not conclude that you are deliberately raising red herrings in order to avoid both of our questions?***
No! You should identify what type of atheist you are. Nail it down to specifics. At that point, I could start reading.
As you aren’t empathic or imaginative, let me give you an example by switching our positions where I required you to read about theism.
Where would you go to read articles that fit the description, “Theist believe in gods. Nothing more…nothing less?”
If you read the Quran and became an expert but I was a polytheist, what good would your study be in your conversation to me? None.
So understand how condescending and useless your “advice” that I improve myself was.
#20 is a do-over. Please try again.
Austin, i think — speaking as a naturalist — that evolution DID indirectly provide the basis for “morality” in homo sapiens, other great apes, and quite an elephantine list of other species. biological evolution developed, in our ancestry, altruism which is the basis for evolutionary success. where one fails, ten may not. the number of our fellow denizens from the smallest ant to the largest walrus who take care of their own or punish those who act destructively toward their fellows cannot be ignored by theists as mere coincidence.
from this, i would offer that the determination of right and wrong, given someone with an atheistic worldview that otherwise does NOT provide for a reasoned foundation for morality (eg, Buddhism already does), ground it in this same altruism that we see existing elsewhere in nature.
i feel that we can even take it further to say that ABSOLUTE morality can exist without supernatural dictates. judge an act against the effects of that act on others in any and all places and times. if it is ever morally wrong against anyone anywhere, or at any time, it is an immoral act absolutely and universally. this avoids the pitfall of “moral relativism”.
morality seemed to be one of the first points brought up by DS M so i thought i would touch on it.
I’m not speaking on behalf of all atheists because I’m not saying anything about or for all atheists. I’m simply describing the accusations made by some theists.
I expect you to support your assertions. If I have made any assertions you think I should support here, feel free to ask me to do so.
Actually, treating one’s position as a given is the pattern we find in cases of a privileged group objecting when an un-privileged group behaves in a way that would be unremarkable if done by the privileged. So, I don’t think that my conclusion here is incorrect.
However, if you think it is incorrect, please state what exactly is incorrect: is it incorrect that believers are unaware of what they are doing or is it correct that they are unaware, but for different reasons?
I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Are you asking if I am a weak/implicit/agnostic atheist, a strong/explicit/gnostic atheist, an apatheist, or a practical atheist?
I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by “the atheism level.” There are hundreds of articles here about atheism and thus are arguably at “the atheism level.”
You seem very fixated on a question that you only just now thought to ask.
I’m afraid that I can’t understand what you reading basic information about the nature of atheism has to do with knowing what “type” of atheist I am. You can start reading any time you care enough to start reading. If you don’t care enough to start reading, you can hardly care enough to be asking.
That’s not a description, that’s a definition. So, the question makes no sense.
That’s only true if we were to spend all our time discussing your polytheism rather than theism generally. In fact, I might be able to offer quite a lot to a conversation about theism if I were well-educated in the nature of strict monotheism because this would provide balance to your personal knowledge of polytheism.
No, I don’t. First, your analogy doesn’t reveal anything about the current situation. Second, my advice is to read the basics of atheism — what it is, what it is not, and common misunderstandings. If you are sincere in your claim that you are interested in what atheism is, you should be eager to read such information. You don’t need to know anything about me to read it because nothing about me will change what atheism is, what atheism is not, and what sorts of misunderstandings people have about atheism. Indeed, all of that would remain the same even if I stopped being an atheist.
If you want to talk about “condescending and useless,” trying looking more closely at your own comments. It’s condescending for you to expect people to spoon-feed you information about atheism when you won’t invest any of your own time to read information that has been specially created for just such purposes. It’s arrogant for you to expect to have everything repeated here and now just for you. It’s useless for you to insist that you are sincere when you keep making false generalizations about atheists and atheism.
No, thanks, I think it’s a good response to you and I won’t change a single word. On the contrary, I will reiterate what I was already pointed out because, once more, you ignore every point where your errors and problems are pointed out. You imply the presence of a contradiction between two sets of statements but, when challenged to show just where the contradiction is, you refuse. When challenged to support your claims about what “the typical atheist” does, you fail. When you’re failure is pointed out, you refuse to try again. When it is demonstrated that when people who share some quality happen to have beliefs, this does not entail that they therefore have a belief system based on that quality or that those beliefs help define that quality, you pretend that nothing was said at all. When it is pointed out to you that the “facts” of atheism have been organized and prepared in numerous documents for you to read and think about, you refuse to bother and keep insisting that everyone else cater to you here and now.
Well, I’m sorry, but no. The material in question was created for people who have questions about atheism and that’s where you — like everyone else — can start. If you can’t find what you want, feel free to ask. If you have questions about what you read, feel free to ask. If you have questions you don’t think were answered, feel free to ask. All that’s is completely reasonable and I’m more than happy to help with such issues. Indeed, anyone who raises such issues may be helping me to identify problems or holes in coverage, so I’m always happy to hear about that.
What’s not going to happen, though, is anyone repeating everything that has already been written just for your benefit because you can’t be bothered to click on a couple of links and read it on your own.
DS M: #20 is a do-over. Please try again.
Austin: No, thanks, I think it’s a good response to you and I won’t change a single word. On the contrary, I will reiterate what I was already pointed out because, once more, you ignore every point where your errors and problems are pointed out. You imply the presence of a contradiction between two sets of statements but, when challenged to show just where the contradiction is, you refuse.
DS M: I have not refused. You have failed to grasp my argument. Let me try again to have you respond to it. From the beginning, I said:
***Yet, from the atheist’s position right and wrong come to the same conclusion. Without different endings, where is the difference between right and wrong?
Sure, there are temporary differences or differences in appearance like 1 + 1 appears to be different than 8 / 4. But in spite of their differences, they are really the same.***
Austin, you keep trying to steer me into an argument that deals with more than your definition of atheism:
“If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.”
By your definition, you prove my position is true ….if your definition of atheism is true.
Atheism is defined only as “a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more…nothing less” Therefore, if gods don’t exist, there is nothing left to define atheism!
Take that one step further…
If atheism is true, what is the difference between the atheist and theist?
Nothing!… because that which separates the theist from the atheist doesn’t exist. Therefore, there is no real differenc between the atheist’s and the theist’s position….if you ***won’t change a single word.***
Austin, my job here is not to get you to believe in atheism. You will either:
1. believe atheism is true and see no real difference in the theist’s and atheist’s position or
2. you prove you don’t believe in your definition of atheism.
If you want a do over for your definition of atheism, I will be happy to let you have one there too.
Otherwise, how can I state more clearly:
From your POV of the truth and using your definition of atheism, there is no differences between the atheist’s position and the theist’s postion.
And since you can’t see a difference between atheism and theism, how can you deny the truth that theism is true as well as atheism?
I am interested in your response.
I’m not arguing about the definition of atheism; I’m simply correcting your errors about atheism. You were the one who claimed you wanted to learn about atheism; since you object to having your errors corrected because this steers you away from your claims about atheism, then your claim was necessarily false.
Feel free to show how.
Feel free to show how.
The idea of “believing in” atheism is incoherent.
I wasn’t aware that you had a “job” here, though. You claimed that you wanted to learn about atheism. Oh, that wasn’t a sincere statement, was it? You had a different agenda all along.
Feel free to show how.
Theism is the position that the proposition “at least one god exists” is true. Atheism is not. The two are mutually exclusive. If you believe that there is no difference between two mutually exclusive positions, feel free to show how.
I won’t hold my breath, though, because you have refused to answer every question put to you and have avoided every challenge to every one of your assertions.
Obviously, your memory isn’t working. As I said many times, I did my research from your website and am quoting you and you said it more than once.
DS M: Austin, you keep trying to steer me into an argument that deals with more than your definition of atheism:
“If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.”
Feel free to show how.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/Definition_of_Atheism_Dictionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm
How are Atheism & Theism Different? How are Atheism & Theism Similar?
****The difference is ultimately very simple: theists believe in at least one sort of god. …Atheists lack belief in the existence of any gods external to human minds.***
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm
What Is Atheism? Why Atheists Define Atheism Broadly?:
(First paragraph)
***Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.***
(second paragraph)
***The broad definition of atheism is most accurate. It’s not only the definition atheists use, but it’s supported by most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries. The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition lies in the fact that it allows us to describe a wider range of positions.***
(The last paragraph is where I got my specific quote)
*** Atheism implies no further belief system — it implies no beliefs about politics, no philosophy, no beliefs about society, no beliefs about science, no beliefs about religion, or even that the person is irreligious (because some religions are atheistic). Atheists vary as much in their beliefs and attitudes as theists do……….. If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
Austin, this is a summary of your article where I was to learn about atheism as you instructed me. I have proved my point using your definition of atheism so you can stop holding your breath.
Should you want to continue to argue about what you define as atheism, I can source those dictionaries that your referenced and therefore further solidify my position.
Again, it is your argument that I have used to prove my position.
My job here is not to get you to believe in atheism. You will either:
1. believe atheism is true and see no real difference in the theist’s and atheist’s position or
2. you prove you don’t believe in your definition of atheism.
From your POV of the truth and using your definition of atheism, there is no differences between the atheist’s position and the theist’s postion. This is true because you insist on using the broad definition of atheism which defines atheism by a “lack of belief in gods.”
In the same article, you say:
***Atheists agree that gods exist as ideas in people’s minds; the disagreement lies over whether any gods actually exist independently of human beliefs.***
Therefore, if you really believed in atheism, you would know that there really is no difference between the theist and the atheist except in our minds. And since we all started as dust and will conclude as dust, the difference is not real but imagined.
Austin, you can either:
1. prove your point that there is a REAL difference between the atheist and the theism that goes beyond appearance or one’s imagination or
2. you can say it was a mistake to use the broad definition of atheism and redefine your position.
The ball is in your court.
Sorry, but I don’t see anything in the quotes which even relates to your assertions, much less proves them.
You can offer as many quotes as you want for as long as you want, but it won’t help unless and until you can actually construct an argument which establishes links between those quotes and the assertions you are making.
Once again, it’s incoherent to say that one “believes in” atheism.
Since atheism isn’t a claim or assertion, it’s incoherent to say it is “true” or “false.”
It also doesn’t make any sense to “believe in” a lexical definition. A lexical definition either is an accurate definition or it is not.
Feel free to show how. That would require construct an argument linking the standard definition of atheism with your assertion that there is no difference between atheism and theism. Simply quoting others and then saying “Presto! I proved it!” won’t suffice.
I don’t “believe in” atheism because that concept makes no sense. Atheism isn’t an idea, ideology, principle, or ideal that one can “believe in.”
It is not in my imagination that theists believe in at least one god but atheists don’t. So long as there are theists who really do believe in at least one god and atheists who really don’t, this difference is genuine rather than merely apparent.
The broad definition of atheism is the definition of atheism that is in general use. I can’t “redefine” it, I can either accept it or not. If you wish to insist that there are flaws in it, you’ll have to do more to establish that.
Only if we ignore the fact that you think you are supporting your claims by posting quotes without establishing any sort of connection between them and your assertions. I won’t ignore that, though, and will continue to point to all the questions and challenges you repeatedly ignore. Every time you post, you simply repost the same unsupported assertions in a new way.
Austin: Sorry, but I don’t see anything in the quotes which even relates to your assertions, much less proves them.
DS M: Are you saying you posted someone else’s argument without understanding it? It is not my job to explain your argument to you.
My job here is not to get you to believe in atheism.
Austin: Once again, it’s incoherent to say that one “believes in” atheism.
DS M: This is another argument you need to have with yourself. When you resolve this with yourself let me know. Until then, I agree with the part of you that said,
Austin: ****** Atheism implies no further belief system ***
DS M: You keep wanting to steer the conversation away from your definition. You want me to make more of atheism than what you defined it.
***If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
As you said,
***Thus, the broader definition of atheism is important because it immediately puts the spotlight where it should be: on the claimant (the theist, in this case) and on whether the claimant’s case is good enough to warrant further consideration or even acceptance.***
You don’t want me to assume the atheist position is true. Why not?
If atheism is true, then it is as you said,
***Atheists agree that gods exist as ideas in people’s minds; the disagreement lies over whether any gods actually exist independently of human beliefs.***
Ideas in people’s minds can’t be confused with reality. Therefore, the difference between atheism and theism is in appearance only….according to your definition and explanation of atheism.
It can’t be simpier, more complete, or easier to understand than using
your definition of atheism
your explanation of atheism
to prove that to atheists, there is no difference between the atheist’s position and the theist’s position. Both are true.
If you don’t want a do over. Define truth.
Of course not, but it is your job to explain how my statements support your claims.
It’s not an argument at all. I’m correcting you.
Broadly defined, the atheist position is neither true nor false.
I’m not so sure that no one confuses ideas in their own minds with reality.
Feel free to explain how there is no difference between believing and not believing in atheism. Then you might explain how there is no difference between up and down, left and right, and so forth.
DS M arguments reminded me of Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty;
‘There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
‘I meant, “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
Austin: Broadly defined, the atheist position is neither true nor false.
DS M: On what grounds do you make this statement?
I’m glad to have been used to start a discussion thread, but disappointed by what that thread degenerated into. Austin, you have more patience than I do! I certainly couldn’t read all of DSMs writing - too incoherent, circular, and illogical to follow.
Anyhow, in an attempt to get back on topic, does anyone have a story of an effective way they managed to politely disagree with a theistic presumption, and yet still continue with a meaningful and respectful conversation? I find that most of these things are conversation killers; I can’t get a theist to continue a polite or meaningful conversation if they force their religious mumbo-jumbo into a conversation, forcing me to point out I don’t share their supernatural beliefs.
Tracie makes a good point - if they lead with religious presumptions, then refuting them is fair game.
I find the only way to become friends with a theist is to make sure they recognise what they have in common with you BEFORE they know you are an atheist; otherwise the natural tendency of theism to bigotry overrides any other interests you may have in common.
Because, broadly defined atheism isn’t an assertion to which the qualities “true” or “false” can be applied. Atheism can no more be “true” or “false” than baldness. It can be true or false that a person is an atheist or is bald, but the state of atheism and the state of baldness cannot.
Austin: broadly defined atheism isn’t an assertion to which the qualities “true” or “false” can be applied. Atheism can no more be “true” or “false” than baldness. It can be true or false that a person is an atheist or is bald, but the state of atheism and the state of baldness cannot.
DS M: So if the discussion is whether the man is bald or not, your answer wouldn’t be true. You would say the man just is. Therefore, bald and with hair are equal. Thank you for proving my point, again.
George: DS M arguments reminded me of Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty;
DS M: Actually, it is a matter of simple logic and understanding the definition of choice.
A = C
dust = dust
The question being discussed is the middle section. You can call it “B” or “life.”
As ALL of life starts and concludes at the same place, what conclusions can you logically make about “B” or “life”?
1. It doesn’t matter how long you live or don’t live.
2. It doesn’t matter what you do or don’t do.
Why? All paths begin and end at the same point. Therefore, what is done in the middle doesn’t matter.
#4 Ron got what I was saying. He said, ***We start and conclude at the same point. True. But what is important, is what we do in between start and conclude***
I would ask Ron how A could equal C but B be greater than the starting point (A) and the ending point (C). From my POV, A = B = C.
Austin correctly says, ***Atheism can no more be “true” or “false” than baldness. It can be true or false that a person is an atheist or is bald, but the state of atheism and the state of baldness cannot.***
But like Ron, Austin doesn’t want everything in his equation to equal either. This is demonstrated by his website.
For there to be unequal, there has to be a choice where there are actual differences….and not simply the appearance.
For example: 1 + 1 appears to be radically different than 8 / 4 but they have the same conclusion. Having the same conclusion, we conclude that 1 + 1 = 8 / 4.
I recognize that atheism doesn’t appear to be the same as theism tell me how does being an atheist really differ from being a theist?
You could say that there are major differences.
I would simply ask you to simply broaden your scope of understanding and know that at some point in time, everything you do will cease to matter or make a difference.
Since this is true, whether you are an atheist or a theist really doesn’t matter. The fact it appears to matter or make a difference is simply an illustion.
This is exactly the opposite of what I said: “It can be true or false that a person is an atheist or is bald”
Since you “proved” your point by saying the exact opposite of what I wrote, I think you have actually established that you’ve been wrong all along in saying that any of my quotes “prove” your point.
It should be noted that theism does make an assertion that can be true or not, and thus my description of atheism does not apply to theism. This is another reason why your attempt to equivocate between them fails.
Like trying to get you to see and understand the truth. No matter what you are told, you find ways to assert the opposite while ignoring all questions and challenges. This is why you are comfortable in asserting falsehoods, even those that directly contradict the material in front of you. You don’t believe it matters if you distinguish between truth and falsehood. If atheism and theism can be the same thing, then why not truth and falsehood as well?
DS M: So if the discussion is whether the man is bald or not, your answer wouldn’t be true.
Austin: This is exactly the opposite of what I said: “It can be true or false that a person is an atheist or is bald”
DS M: Care to stand behind your words with something besides your belief that this is true? How can all paths conclude at the same point and true and false leading to a different conclusion? Logically, this is impossible.
Austin: It should be noted that theism does make an assertion that can be true or not, and thus my description of atheism does not apply to theism. This is another reason why your attempt to equivocate between them fails.
DS M: As a theist, there is a difference between right and wrong, true and false, best and worst. That is because theism allows for there to be different conclusions to choices that are made.
May I paraphrase you for the atheist’s position? You would agree that the theist believed this way but it was all in his head.
So to the real card carrying atheist, his belief about there only being one path is correct. The fact that the theist is delusional is his belief that there can be two conclusions doesn’t change the atheist’s reality that there is only one.
DS M: I would simply ask you to simply broaden your scope of understanding and know that at some point in time, everything you do will cease to matter or make a difference.
Austin: Like trying to get you to see and understand the truth. No matter what you are told, you find ways to assert the opposite while ignoring all questions and challenges.
DS M: Austin, the only truth that you have given is the definition of atheism. ***If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.*** It is you that have failed to expand my understanding of truth.
This whole conversation one path verses two has been my attempt to move past what you as an atheist would consider delusional to what you would consider truth. As a two path kind of guy, I want to know that your one path is better even though better doesn’t really exist.
You wouldn’t want me to simply believe in atheism because you said it was the “right” way to believe, would you? You would want me to use my mind and believe only that which can be proven, right?
Sure. A binary state is, by definition, true or false.
I’m afraid I can’t make any sene out of that statement.
There is nothing about theism, as opposed to atheism, which entails what you have said.
There is nothing in the definition of atheism about believing in “paths.”
1. There is nothing in the definition of atheism which entails thinking that theists are “delusional.”
2. There is nothing in the definition of theism, as opposed to atheism, about believing “that there can be two conclusions.”
Funny how you think you can assume you know what I “consider delusional.” Once again, as from the very beginning, we find you making monumental assumptions about atheists and atheism.
Atheism isn’t a “path”.
Atheism isn’t an ideology or system that one can “believe in.” So, I can’t want you to “believe in” atheism or not want you to “believe in” atheism. It isn’t possible for you to “believe in” atheism.
No. I’ve never, ever said anything about only believing “that which can be proven.” And so once again we find you making lots of assumptions about others.
You just can’t help yourself, it seems.
Point 1
DS M: Care to stand behind your words with something besides your belief that this is true?
Austin: Sure. A binary state is, by definition, true or false.
DS M: Thank you for correcting your definition of atheism to being more than:
***If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
I see you have given me enough rope to hang myself. Rather than put my head in the noose you have prepared for me, may I ask that you connect this “binary state” answer with “the lack of belief in gods”.
What does this new understand mean in the world of atheism which start and end with humans being dust? Or how is the binary system meaningful to non-human but living organisms?
Point 2
Austin: I’m afraid I can’t make any sense out of that statement.
DS M: If it is logically impossible, it shouldn’t make sense. Let me help you.
The premise is that something can’t be A and not A at the same time.
As the atheist’s position is that we come from dust and return to being dust, how can there be
a true or false
right or wrong
best and worst
would require there being an alternative to dust as the atheist’s final answer. If this is not correct, then please tell me the difference between right and wrong when they both originate and conclude at the same place?
Point 3
Austin: Atheism isn’t an ideology or system that one can “believe in.”
DS M: Are you standing by every word or are should I continue to allow you to make corrections to your website as we go? Pick one.
Sorry, you still don’t get it. The definition of atheism I gave remains unchanged, just as it can be found in major resources. The statement you quote doesn’t apply to the definition of atheism, it applies to whether a person is an atheist or not. The state of being an atheist is either true or not true about any particular person.
Some atheists believe this. Some don’t. It’s a shame you can’t learn to not make lots of unwarranted assumptions about others.
Beyond this, you seem to be assuming that if we “come from dust and return to dust,” then there can’t be true & false, right & wrong, best & worst. This is a popular assumption among some theists, but I’ve never seen one who could substantiate it. They just take it for granted, never having apparently been expected to support it.
The line you quote isn’t a correction; it’s no different from what I’ve always said.
DS M says; “As a two path kind of guy, I want to know that your one path is better even though better doesn’t really exist.” (see the Carroll quote @ #31 above)
If ‘better doesn’t really exist” then what is the point of theism DS M? If the outcome of either path is virtually the same and cannot be improved, by YOUR definition, then “dust to dust” is a logical outcome of theism.
Your hydra headed argument appears designed to provoke a response you can carry away as a trophy but in the end you will have “proven” nothing other than that you are a nihilist in sheep’s clothing.
Point 1
Austin: Sorry, you still don’t get it
DS M: Actually, let me help you see the illusion in your statements.
You maintain your definition is true which says,
***If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
If we assume your definition is true, then how can your statement about the binary system have any meaning? If the binary system statement has meaning, the you have added to your definition.
Apparently, you what to jump to conclusions and say true and false are relative to situation and universal at the same time. Logically, this is impossible.
So is true the “truth” universally to all people or is the truth relative to the individual?
Pick one if you think the answer should be universal…. and thus adding something to your definition of atheism as I said.
Pick zero for truth being relative to the individual making beliefs in atheism and theism equal….making your statement about the binary system have the appearance of having meaning while actually not contributing anything to the conversation.
Point 2
DS M: As the atheist’s position is that we come from dust and return to being dust
Austin: Some atheists believe this. Some don’t.
DS M: Then this is your lucky day. Please show me the link to your website where all many ways that atheism believe the earth started.
I can’t wait to read about all the scientifically provable and equally right ways the term atheism encompasses about creation, life and death.
What was that link again? Or will you agree with me that atheism describes people who have many different beliefs?
George: If ‘better doesn’t really exist” then what is the point of theism DS M?
DS M: Bing! George, you win the prize!
Theists believe “better” exists.
It is the atheist that only has one path.
Better can only be better if when chosen, a verifiable change occurs and improvement is made.
Atheism is simply a case of smarts. It has many tests for getting rid of skygods and others that are used for cons. Theism is just mental laziness.
It is an accurate definition, yes.
Well, I’m afraid I fail to see any contradiction or problem. All you know from the label “atheist” is that a person lacks belief in gods and everyone either is a theist or is an a-theists. Seems compatible to me.
Sorry, but atheism is the state of not believing in any gods and, as such, cannot “have beliefs” itself. Having belief is limited to certain types of living organsisms.
I’m sorry, but who said that atheism “encompasses” any beliefs about creation, life and death? My statement was about variation in the beliefs atheists hold, not what atheism “encompasses”. Furthermore, I didn’t say anything about everything atheists believing being “scientifically provable and equally right.” I’m going to have to chalk both of those errors up to you, once again, making assumptions about other people.
The term “atheism” doesn’t describe any person, it’s a term for the state of not believing in any gods. However, because the label “atheist” only means that a person lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less — and disbelief in gods is compatible with a wide variety of beliefs, it is true that the label “atheist” applies to many different people with many different beliefs.
This isn’t a remarkable insight which you have come up with; on the contrary, it’s something that most atheists already know and is referenced innumerable times here on this site. I have many articles describing the many different political, philosophical, and religious beliefs which atheists can have.
Point 1
DS M:If we assume your definition is true, then how can your statement about the binary system have any meaning?
Austin: Well, I’m afraid I fail to see any contradiction or problem.
DS M: Then we agreed. Your statement about the binary system is void of meaning as previously stated. Thank you.
Point 2
Austin: My statement was about variation in the beliefs atheists hold, not what atheism “encompasses”. Furthermore, I didn’t say anything about everything atheists believing being “scientifically provable and equally right.” I’m going to have to chalk both of those errors up to you, once again, making assumptions about other people.
DS M: And I will credit these errors to the fact that previously you said atheists didn’t have beliefs….now you confirm then do. Thank you for correcting that point.
Second, your definition of atheism is incomplete. It can’t be simply a ***lack of belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.*** The research would indicate there is much more to atheism as you refer…but refuse to describe. Why?
You said your website was to educate people about atheism. How can you educat people when you don’t describe all the different beliefs atheism holds and up until lately, denied existed?
You should want theist come here and be enlightened to the many logical and scientifically based beliefs of atheists hold that are all equally right.
***Atheism is simply a case of smarts. It has many tests for getting rid of skygods and others that are used for cons.*** Right John?
So do a side by side comparison of the many beliefs of atheism and the many beliefs of theism.
Let your walk do the talking. Or Austin, put a link telling about all the beliefs of atheism and let the virtues of atheism speak for themselves.
Provide the link of all the different denominations of atheism and their virtues. Logic does not need your protection and truth speaks for itself.
Geez, you’re making this far more complicated than it need be. You can argue about definitions and meanings all you want but it basically boils down to this: I don’t believe in the Hebrew-Christian-Islamic god for the same reasons you don’t believe in Amon-Ra, Zeus, and Thor.
No, you see a conflict where I don’t. I stand by the accepted definition of atheism and I stand by the fact that being an atheist or not is a binary state.
Where did I say that?
Feel free to point to what indicates that there is more to atheism.
I see your problem: you are confusing “atheists hold different beliefs” with “atheism holds different beliefs”. The two are not equivalent. Atheists hold many different beliefs; I have not denied this but have, in fact, pointed this out repeatedly. Atheism, however, is not a “system” with many different beliefs. The mere fact that an atheist has some belief does not mean that that belief is a part of atheism. I pointed this out to you earlier, but you must have forgotten.
OK, here are all the beliefs of atheism:
…
That’s it, a null set. There are no “beliefs of atheism.”
Now, if you want “all the beliefs of atheists,” that list would be too long to make.
“So do a side by side comparison of the many beliefs of atheism and the many beliefs of theism.”
DSM isn’t interested in learning or debate. This sentence proves it. He has somehow missed something Austin’s said about 15 times in this thread. Either DSM is very dense, or he’s refusing to read what’s being said; that atheism isn’t a belief or a set of beliefs. You’re giving yourself carpal tunnel for nothing.
The definition is complete, DSM. Stop pretending it isn’t. If you can’t get the definition through your head… waste someone else’s time. Atheism doesn’t have or need a list of virtues. It’s not a dogma. It makes no contentions. 0, zip, zilch, nada, null, none. Someone who does not HAVE a belief in god(s), is an atheist. If you can’t accept that it is your problem.
Keep in mind that many theists refused to accept that the Earth went around the sun, despite all the evidence. Why? Because their book, written by people without telescopes didn’t know better. That’s the mindset we’re dealing with here.
Don’t know why the sun moves across the sky? Well, it’s Ra riding in his chariot! Afraid to die? Don’t worry, if you do as I tell you (and NOT as I DO), you’ll live forever in paradise. Why do bad things happen to good people who do as I said to do? Because the invisible pink unicorn is testing your faith or maybe she has a plan or something. Why did it rain on your wedding day? Because you touch yourself, god can see it and thinks it’s gross. Why did you get sick after eating undercooked pig? Well, it’s not because of chemistry or heat killing bacteria, it’s because pigs are satan’s pets. Don’t know why the galaxy is moving so fast? God matter!
I wonder if DSM really wants to understand, but well done Austin for your long and (I think) very clear responses.
Just in case it makes it any clearer for DSM, you can think of Atheism as the state of mind concerning the existence of god(s). If the human mind has been exposed to information about god(s) then the mind may be convinced (to varying degrees) or unconvinced (an absence of belief) of their existence. These are the only two possible states.
But be clear that a mind that has never heard of the issue at all is by default atheist, since there is an absence of belief.
You can substitute any other idea in the place of god(s). So everyone except me has no beliefs about what I had for breakfast, because they have been exposed to no information about it. You might have an hypothesis, now that I have created a place in your mind for this information to go, but you must remain unconvinced because you have no evidence.
You remain an APeter’sBreakfastist. If, for some reason, you CLAIM to be a believer that I had eggs on toast, and indeed you might believe it, that simply shows how humans can develop beliefs and hold them sincerely and stongly, without evidence. Something we on this site, are trying to confront.
“DS M says; “As a two path kind of guy, I want to know that your one path is better EVEN THOUGH BETTER DOESN’T REALLY EXIST (my caps).””
DS M you are quoted in my comment, copied above, as saying “better doesn’t really exist.”"” then you refer to my post by saying:
“George: If ‘better doesn’t really exist” then what is the point of theism DS M?
DS M: Bing! George, you win the prize!
Theists believe “better” exists.”
DS M your contradiction and hypocrisy is obvious with your own words. You don’t want to learn you only want to be argumentative.
George: DS M your contradiction and hypocrisy is obvious with your own words.
DS M: Spoken like a TV evangelist. Have you been going to church lately? Why are you trying to damn me to your hell since you don’t believe hell exists?
Have you converted and see that I am traveling down the road of darkness while you are walking in the light?
Are you now walking that self-righteous path of claiming not only to know the truth but to force your truth on others! Did you not see the slipery slope of sliding away from atheism with the preaching of your morality?
Who are you, oh atheist, to speak for the gods?
George, if you say there is no heaven or hell, then all paths lead to a common destination. We all go to the same place.
And if we all go to the same place, then right and wrong conclude at the same place. So on what basis can you say I am wrong and remain an atheist?
As an atheist, you could have just as easily said I was right. Why didn’t you? ….as the differences that separate us only exist in our heads, right?
While I can parrot the atheist’s position at this point, I “truly” don’t have a clue about the belief in the one path.
Obviously, you grasp (or parrot) the theist position quite well. I am very interested in your answer. Would you be “good” enough to explain it to me?
Point one
DS M: Then we agreed.
Austin: No, you see a conflict where I don’t. I stand by the accepted definition of atheism and I stand by the fact that being an atheist or not is a binary state.
DS M: Then please be kind enough show me where the “binary state” is in your definition: ***lack of belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
If you can’t find “binary state” in the definition, then understand that you have added something to your definition that all atheist would have to agree. I would want to see the research demonstrating that all atheists agree.
Point 2
DS M: “So do a side by side comparison of the many beliefs of atheism and the many beliefs of theism.”
TODD: DSM isn’t interested in learning or debate. This sentence proves it. ….The definition is complete, DSM.
DS M: Todd, you really need to examine what 48) GeckoRoamin says: it basically boils down to this: I don’t believe in the Hebrew-Christian-Islamic god for the same reasons you don’t believe in Amon-Ra, Zeus, and Thor.
The challenge you are having is you don’t want a side by side comparison. A side by side comparison would have the atheist’s view next to the theist’s view or the “survival of the fittest” view next to the Muslim view.
What you aren’t getting is that the Hebrew -Christian - Islamic view isn’t the theist’s view anymore than the “survival of the fittest” view is the atheist’s view.
Austin and I are very limited in the discussion because Austin doesn’t want to disclose all the different atheists beliefs like GeckoRoamin listed all the different theists beliefs. On the other hand, you are free to hear the word, “atheist” and have it mean everything you have come to define the word by.
Given that we are limited to discussing only what all the different views of atheism and theism believe, that leaves the conversation limited to 2 topics:
1. gods vs no gods
2. one or two paths
That is it. Nothing else can be discussed without Austin or myself saying, “can you prove that is the (a)theist position?”
I would be hard pressed to believe all those who believe in the gods also believe in a “binary state.” The question is whether all atheists do believe in the “binary state.” If so, it should be added to the definition.
If it can’t be added to the definition, then not all atheists believe in the “binary state” ….meaning that atheism is that broad in it scope that the only thing all atheists agree on is there is a “lack of gods.” Atheists have disputes about everything else.
I would love to see Austin include all the different beliefs that make up atheism on his website. This addition would be very informative. I am sure it would equal the differences in all that which can be called the theist’s POV.
Hope this helps.
One either has a belief in gods or one lacks belief in any gods. There is no third option. That, by definition, is a binary state.
Everything that a person can believe, is a belief an atheist can hold, except for belief in the existence of gods. So the list of possible beliefs atheists can hold is the same as the list of beliefs humans can hold, minus one.
There are no beliefs that “make up” atheism. As I’ve pointed out multiple times now, the fact that an atheist happens to hold some opinion doesn’t mean that that opinion helps “make up” atheism. Every time I’ve told you this, you’ve ignored it. If you continue to do so, I’m going to have to conclude that you’re trolling here and revoke your posting privileges.
DS M: “Then please be kind enough show me where the “binary state” is in your definition: ***lack of belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***”
The binary state isn’t in that quote. The binary state is “you believe in God(theism) or you don’t(atheism)”. There’s nothing more the atheism than lack of believe in any god, the same as there is nothing more to theism than believe in at least one god.
The difference between atheism and theism is that one believes and the other doesn’t. To the question “do you believe in any god” one would answer yes and the other no = binary!
Pandamonk: The difference between atheism and theism is that one believes and the other doesn’t. To the question “do you believe in any god” one would answer yes and the other no = binary!
DS M: Therefore, there is no difference between the atheist position and the theist position.
To illustrate my point,
There was a class of atheist conducting an experiment in a lab, shouting out temperatures, 45, 90, 90, -400, +5000. Each atheist would say they had the right number according to them.
Along comes a theist and shouts out 95. All the atheists say the theist is wrong. The theists protest on two accounts:
1. Without defining what the experiment was to accomplish, on what grounds do you call my answer wrong?
2. As my answer was closer to some atheists answers than other atheists, how do you divide atheist - theist. Why wouldn’t you divide according to the answers?
Please respond to this question. If you would be so kind, limit your answer to the definition of atheism I am forced to use:
***lack of belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.***
Austin: As I’ve pointed out multiple times now, the fact that an atheist happens to hold some opinion doesn’t mean that that opinion helps “make up” atheism. Every time I’ve told you this, you’ve ignored it.
DS M: This is true.
It is equally true that you allow yourself to use the word “belief” both in this conversation and on your website.
#41 ***Some atheists believe this. Some don’t.***
As you talk about atheists beliefs, so I should be able to as well.
No one has said you can’t talk about what atheists believe (in the appropriate context — by this point, you should probably post in the forum because nothing you write appears to be on-topic with respect to this blog post). What you have been told, and which I will now reiterate, is that you cannot pretend that opinions which atheists happen to have are opinions which are also necessarily a part of atheism.
DS M: Therefore, there is no difference between the atheist position and the theist position.
To illustrate my point,
There was a class of atheist conducting an experiment in a lab, shouting out temperatures, 45, 90, 90, -400, +5000. Each atheist would say they had the right number according to them.
Along comes a theist and shouts out 95. All the atheists say the theist is wrong. The theists protest on two accounts:
1. Without defining what the experiment was to accomplish, on what grounds do you call my answer wrong?
2. As my answer was closer to some atheists answers than other atheists, how do you divide atheist - theist. Why wouldn’t you divide according to the answers?