What you may often find in Atheists is a kind of seething contempt for religion and religious people, — whollyrolling
Atheism has no meaning, or it is a religion as I've suggested elsewhere, it can't go both ways. — whollyrolling
I used to call myself an atheist, but as you and others are demonstrating here, that doesn't really fit does it? — whollyrolling
Also, a Christian will not likely engage in debate or other antics with an Atheist, as they find it idle or unappealing, fruitless — whollyrolling
An Atheist, on the other hand, has contempt for something that doesn't exist and for anyone who says it exists — whollyrolling
Yet their very own bible warns them against this behaviour. — whollyrolling
American Atheists rely on extremism to condemn whole populations. They find rare instances and paint them as status quo. — whollyrolling
There is one form of atheism, not "forms". — whollyrolling
What are intangibles? Could you define your term? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme.You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Thats what I thought you meant. If we are, by definition, unable to verify a thing (empirically im assuming), then how can we justify believing that it exists? Are we speaking of some platonic existence? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
So then, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone categorizes individual Christians it may end the same way? — whollyrolling
No individual's belief system is "simple". Of course, you can draw some simple distinctions - like inferring that as an atheist I don't believe in "God", but the sort of inferences you can justifiably make are limited. As an example from personal experience: I've encountered many strawman arguments that "prove" atheism is false, which are pointless if they apply to almost no one.Relativist: "It may cloud one's understanding of individuals."
I'm saying that atheism is simple and that peripheral belief systems, much like what happens with religion outside the definition of theism, are not inherent to the labels "theist" or "atheist". — whollyrolling
A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A
-Gregory...you haven't studied the topic, haven't you!Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. — Gregory A
Gregory!!!!(Philosophical)Naturalism is the counter-position of Supernaturalism. You are doing a category error. While Theism is part of Supernaturalism and Atheism only focus on the rejection of the theistic claim.Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. — Gregory A
-Gregory!!!! you are making a fallacious arguments from false authority. The metaphysical beliefs of humans who happen to work in Scientific field are irrelevant to the evaluation of those beliefs!The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example. — Gregory A
-Gregory!!!! lol....validity has nothing to do with the reason why a position exists! People make unfounded supernatural claims and other people through reason are free to evaluate them and reject them as irrational!If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists. — Gregory A
The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right. — Gregory A
You shouldn't ! You should use logic and reject theism as an irrational, not as a wrong belief.Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc. — Gregory A
Your claims become weirder and weirder. Atheism has nothing to do with free speech. After all in many countries of this world you can lose your life if you say openly you are an Atheist.Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left). — Gregory A
To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant
-lol not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? lolThe important thing is if gods exist in someone's experience. If so, gods exist. — Hillary
not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? — Nickolasgaspar
Atheism rejects all known god claims because they have failed to meet their burden...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar
Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa.You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. — Nickolasgaspar
Sure , but in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. — Relativist
You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. You either live in Paris or you don't. — Nickolasgaspar
I don't understand what you're saying. If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. Rejection means I believe it false. I neither accept nor reject the proposition "there is life of Europa"; i.e. I reserve judgment. You seem to use the words differently.in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim. — Nickolasgaspar
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.