Originally posted by @tom-wolseyIf not their "lack of belief", what does describe 99% of the atheists you've come across?
That said, a simple, bland, "lack of belief" in no way whatsoever describes 99% of the atheists I've come across.
Originally posted by @fmfYou again.
If not their "lack of belief", what does describe 99% of the atheists you've come across?
A true atheist that simply lacks belief would be indifferent about all this. Once any positive claim is made -- X isn't true, Y doesn't exist... "lack of belief" is out the window.
Agnostics lack belief too, by the way.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseySo person who lacks belief - but who is interested in discussion of the sorts of topics covered by this forum - is not a "true atheist"?
You again.
A true atheist that simply lacks belief would be indifferent about all this. Once any positive claim is made -- X isn't true, Y doesn't exist... "lack of belief" is out the window.
Agnostics lack belief too, by the way.
Originally posted by @fmfYou can be indifferent and still engage in conversations. But any atheist that is supremely confident in his or her position wouldn't bother trying to convince others of anything. And of course, trying to convince others that God doesn't exist or God claims aren't true - is a positive claim that stretches beyond a simple lack of belief. And if you can name just one verifiable atheist on the internet that doesn't make any positive claims on this subject, but participates in these debates anyway. Please, proceed.
So person who lacks belief - but who is interested in discussion of the sorts of topics covered by this forum - is not a "true atheist"?
23 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWhat is a "verifiable atheist"? I am sharing my perspectives which are rooted in my lack of belief, and not trying to "convince others of anything" - in much the same way as you are clearly not trying to convince anyone to be a Christian here.
You can be indifferent and still engage in conversations. But any atheist that is supremely confident in his or her position wouldn't bother trying to convince others of anything. And of course, trying to convince others that God doesn't exist or God claims aren't true - is a positive claim that stretches beyond a simple lack of belief. And if you can ...[text shortened]... any positive claims on this subject, but participates in these debates anyway. Please, proceed.
Does that make me a "true" atheist by your definition? I describe myself as an agnostic atheist; is that "verifiable"? I am active in this community: does that make me "a verifiable atheist on the internet"?
Originally posted by @fmfSo many questions.
What is a "verifiable atheist"? I am sharing my perspectives which are rooted in my lack of belief, and not trying to "convince others of anything" - in much the same way as you are clearly not trying to convince anyone to be a Christian here.
Does that make me a "true" atheist by your definition? I describe myself as an agnostic atheist; is that "verifiable"? I am active in this community: does that make me "a verifiable atheist on the internet"?
By "verifiable" I meant, if you did prop up some alleged atheist that doesn't make any positive claims, then it should be verifiable.
If by agnostic atheist you simply lack belief, then you might as well take the atheist out of the title. In any event, if you adhere to that label then you freely admit you are not completely sure there is no Creator. Therefore you assign some kind of probability to your position, which makes it a belief, i.e. "I believe this is likely true by a factor of [whatever] percent probability." Your position is one of personal belief. Therefore you don't lack belief entirely. You do have a belief system.
23 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI have never made any 'positive' claim that there is no god or gods. Instead, I simply don't find credible the claims of a revealed god figure or figures that any religions make. Does that mean I am a "verifiable atheist"?
By "verifiable" I meant, if you did prop up some alleged atheist that doesn't make any positive claims, then it should be verifiable.
23 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWiki says that agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. This is my position. Is it "verifiable"?
If by agnostic atheist you simply lack belief, then you might as well take the atheist out of the title.
23 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyNo I don't. You are mistaken.
Therefore you assign some kind of probability to your position, which makes it a belief, i.e. "I believe this is likely true by a factor of [whatever] percent probability."
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyMy position is that atheism is a lack of belief that gods exist because there is no credible evidence that they have revealed themselves to us. "True atheist", "verifiable atheist" and now "actual atheist". Do you think these terms you are employing help you engage with an agnostic atheist like me?
So you are 100% certain that God does not exist. Now you can ditch the agnostic label and start making positive claims. Welcome to actual atheism!
23 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfA "true atheist" is one that is certain no God exists. By my definition.
My position is that atheism is a lack of belief that gods exist because there is no credible evidence that they have revealed themselves to us. "True atheist", "verifiable atheist" and now "actual atheist". Do you think these terms you are employing help you engage with an agnostic atheist like me?
A "verifiable atheist" as explained which you apparently forgot, in the context of the discussion in which it was applied, is an internet atheist used as an example that can be verified on the internet.
An "actual atheist" is interchangeable with "true atheist."
The fact that you spent the time making me explain and remind you, seems consistent with your habit of parsing out irrelevant portions of a comment on the basis of semantics. It comes with being annoying and obtuse--at least if it is intentional and not part of some obsessive / compulsive disorder.
23 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI have spent time explaining to you that my definition of "atheist" is different to yours.
The fact that you spent the time making me explain and remind you, seems consistent with your habit of parsing out irrelevant portions of a comment on the basis of semantics. It comes with being annoying and obtuse--at least if it is intentional and not part of some obsessive / compulsive disorder.
When you talk of me perhaps having a "compulsive disorder" you are making reference to some kind of mental illness, have I understood you right?
23 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfRepeatedly singling out irrelevant portions of commentary and asking questions about them while ignoring the rest, is a pattern of behavior I have come across countless times in these types of discussions. It is my humble opinion that this pattern of behavior is usually due to either one being obtuse, or having an issue with obsession or compulsion. Of course, you could just be filibustering, but that seems pointless and unlikely. I wouldn't call OCD a mental illness. It's a common disorder, and I have it myself, though not severely.
I have spent time explaining to you that my definition of "atheist" is different to yours.
When you talk of me perhaps having a "compulsive disorder" you are making reference to some kind of mental illness, have I understood you right?
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWe weren't "singling out irrelevant portions of commentary", we were discussing the definition of "atheist" which is entirely relevant to the thread topic and OP.
Repeatedly singling out irrelevant portions of commentary and asking questions about them while ignoring the rest, is a pattern of behavior I have come across countless times in these types of discussions. It is my humble opinion that this pattern of behavior is usually due to either one being obtuse, or having an issue with obsession or compulsion. Of ...[text shortened]... t call OCD a mental illness. It's a common disorder, and I have it myself, though not severely.