Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hmmmm, an atheist talking about 'word games'.

That's gutsy.

Hmm a theist being vague rather than addressing the point. That's cowardly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From the master of 'shifting goalposts'.

It would seem you don't really know what "shifting goalposts" means.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The problem with defining atheism as simply “the lack of belief in God” is that there are already another group of people who fall under that definition: agnostics. So what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

Note: Theist and atheist [and gnostic and agnostic] are properly only capitalised at the start of a sentence.
ALSO! Note that these definitions preclude these meanings being stupidly applied to plants, rocks, or other non-people.

Theist and atheist are answers to questions about a persons belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Gnostic and agnostic are answers to questions about the knowability of the existence of a god or gods.

Theist = A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheist = A person who [for whatever reason] lacks a belief in gods or gods or who believes in the lack of god or gods.
Atheism can come in various flavours depending on what kind of belief or lack there of is involved with any given god concept.
A weak atheist is a person who simply lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
A strong atheist is a person who believes in the non-existence of a god or gods.
An implicit atheist is a person who hasn't heard of a god or gods and/or isn't capable of understanding the concept.

Gnostic [with respect to religion] = A person who claims to know, or that it can be known, that a god or gods do OR do not exist.

Agnostic [with respect to religion] = A person who claims not to know, or that it cannot be known, whether a god or gods exist.

Apatheist [with respect to religion] = Someone who doesn't care whether a god or gods exist. Who by definition lack belief in gods
and are thus also atheists.

Theist and atheist are mutually exclusive and exhaustive terms. In other words they do not overlap, and cover all
possibilities. A person is either one or the other, there is no middle ground between them.

If you believe in a god or gods and claim to know it or they exist then you're a "gnostic theist".

If you believe in a god or gods and don't know if it or they exist then you're an "agnostic theist".

If you don't believe in a god or gods and don't know if it or they exist then you're an "agnostic atheist".

If you don't believe in a god or gods and claim to know if it or they don't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".


http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/10/10/8419/

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism


Dictionaries, don't 'dictate' the meaning of words, they are records of what the words are being used to mean.
As usage changes, so the possible meanings are changed or added to.
Dictionaries have also for a long time been written by theists, Christians in the case of english language dictionaries
and when it comes to atheism and atheists those writers were biased.
Which is why dictionaries often to this day still refer to atheism as disbelief in the existence of "God" with a capital G
as if atheism was only about whether or not you believe in the Christian god.
It's easier to argue against that straw man definition of atheism because it declares that all atheists must believe that
gods don't exist and thus gives atheism a burden of proof that it does not in reality actually have. Which is why many
theists still try to insist on telling us atheists what we do or do not believe and playing word games with the definitions.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Explanation" makes it sound like he is right.

On this particular topic, about what it means to be an atheist or agnostic...
Yes, I am right.

What gets me is that theists are often so terrified of accepting the definitions of these
words as if they are afraid that simply because they are defined correctly it makes
the position of atheism right.

Or that without their straw man depiction of atheism that they don't think they can
successfully argue against it.


Being the 'default' position doesn't make it the 'right' or 'true' position.

The default position on any truth claim is lack of belief one way or another.

So the truth claim "The Earth has a moon" has a default position of not believing either way.
However obviously the Earth does have a moon and the correct position is that that claim
is true. We have evidence more than sufficient to justify belief that the Earth has a moon.
So the 'correct' position with respect to that claim is to believe it to be true.
Lack of belief either way IS still the default though.

Atheism IS the default position, as a lack of belief in gods is an atheistic position.

But that in and of itself does not make atheism the correct position to hold.

What makes atheism the correct position to hold is the lack of evidence for the existence of any god or gods,
and the evidence for the invention of all those gods by humans.

But even if you were to re-define atheism to mean something other than a lack of belief in gods...

Theism is STILL the wrong position to hold as you STILL would be believing something for which there is
no justification.

Which means that this never ending and pointless attempt by theists to redefine atheism for their
straw man assaults is utterly and completely pointless and futile.


So, yes. On this topic, I am right.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This has glaring holes.

I know you're eager to "prove" your case, but this post is far from doing that.

It doesn't actually have glaring holes...

However, if you would like to try to point some out you are more than welcome to do so.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am trying to understand why people become atheists. I have not heard of anyone who born an atheist. So simply put, what convinced you to become an atheist?

I am an atheist. My father was raised a Catholic and my mother a Calvinist - these are the major Christian denominations in the Netherlands although both my parents rejected Christendom - a common trend among Dutch baby-boomers. My mother does dabble in the occasional astrology and related bollocks - I consciously rejected these and, gradually, all other superstitions (including religions) when I started to develop critical thinking skills around the age of 12. This rejection was due to the - in my view - lack of evidence justifying these beliefs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am an atheist. My father was raised a Catholic and my mother a Calvinist - these are the major Christian denominations in the Netherlands although both my parents rejected Christendom - a common trend among Dutch baby-boomers. My mother does dabble in the occasional astrology and related bollocks - I consciously rejected these and, gradually, all othe ...[text shortened]... e of 12. This rejection was due to the - in my view - lack of evidence justifying these beliefs.

So what do you have to say about the dudes that claim that everyone is born an atheist?

Also, hypothetically if the supernatural were to exist, what kind of evidence for it would be acceptable to a naturalist?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So what do you have to say about the dudes that claim that everyone is born an atheist?

He would have nothing to say to them because he doesn't disagree with them. You seem to be confused about what a definition is. Definitions do not create reality. They are merely for communication purposes. We all fully agree about what babies are born as. We just choose to use different words to describe it. The problem is that you incorrectly believe that by using different words you can make theism more believable. You can't.

We are all agreed that babies hold no theistic beliefs positive or negative.

Also, hypothetically if the supernatural were to exist, what kind of evidence for it would be acceptable to a naturalist?
That depends on how you define 'supernatural'. I have never seen a definition that wasn't incoherent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on how you define 'supernatural'. I have never seen a definition that wasn't incoherent.

Although that's a subject we disagree about 😉 [but that is not a topic for this thread]

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html

https://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7340

http://lesswrong.com/lw/tv/excluding_the_supernatural/

EDIT: The last link is an explanation of exactly how you can go about testing for the 'supernatural' and
what that would look like.

Originally posted by FMF
...Atheism is an absence of belief in God. Babies are born with an absence of belief in God. ...

Rocks lack a belief in gods. Since that is stupid (so I hear), there must be something wrong with your definition.

Atheism requires an opinion on the subject of theism. Babies (and rocks) have no opinion on the subject, so they cannot be atheists. A better word to describe babies might be secular.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am an atheist. My father was raised a Catholic and my mother a Calvinist - these are the major Christian denominations in the Netherlands although both my parents rejected Christendom - a common trend among Dutch baby-boomers. My mother does dabble in the occasional astrology and related bollocks - I consciously rejected these and, gradually, all othe ...[text shortened]... e of 12. This rejection was due to the - in my view - lack of evidence justifying these beliefs.

C'mon, be honest.

You probably wanted to sleep with girls and knew God doesn't like fornication.
So Atheism was more intellectually attractive.

C'mon guys. Lots of lusty young people want God to not exist so they can "enjoy" what they think will give them a good time of pleasure.

Relatively fewer made some sophisticated philosophical choice. Most youngsters? You wanted to have fun and God was in the way (so you thought).

Originally posted by sonship
Relatively fewer made some sophisticated philosophical choice.

Do you see yourself as philosophically "sophisticated"?

Originally posted by FMF
It would seem you don't really know what "shifting goalposts" means.

Suddenly I'm thinking the same about you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Suddenly I'm thinking the same about you.

The post of mine you were replying to was not an example of "shifting goalposts". I think you simply blurted out the first dismissive retort that came into your head. If I claimed that God had revealed Himself to me (and he was a being who was not your God figure) would you take my word for it and believe me? Or would the onus be on me to substantiate my claim? Yes. Of course it would be. Pointing this out is not an example of "shifting goalposts".

Originally posted by FMF
Do you see yourself as philosophically "sophisticated"?

I am not terribly well read in man's philosophy.
But I do know where I came from and why I am here and what my destiny is.
I got this from the Bible.

Did you ever notice how the enemies of Jesus pressed Him to speak of many things so that they could catch Him in His words so to criticize Him ?

" And when He went out from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to provoke Him to speak concerning many things.

Lying in wait for Him in order to catch something out of His mouth." ( Luke 11:53,54)

I can just see them peppering Him with questions of all kinds, lying in wait to catch Him in His words to gain some ground to attack. "Just get Him to talk more and more! We'll find something to use to destroy Him !"