Reasons to Reject Atheism

[Angel]

This, Originally Posted by rjay:

Atheist response : I do not believe that is true. I do not see enough evidence, for me, to be able to justify such a belief.

is close to, but not exactly, my position.

I refer to myself as an agnostic, not an atheist. For me, it's easier to reject specific religions due to the weight of their accompanying beliefs (above and beyond the idea that there is a god that created everything in the universe) than it is for me to reject the pure idea of there being something like a God/creator.

You are an agnostic, and have no need to finesse your frank position.

Our friend rjay's representation of atheism is a finessing:

Theist proposition : I believe a God or Gods exists
Atheist response : I do not believe that is true. I do not see enough evidence, for me, to be able to justify such a belief.

What, in this paradigm, is the atheist not believing the truth of? That a theist believes that God exists? So the atheist is an atheist by denying the sincerity of the theist?
The rest of the rjay's "Atheist response" is agnosticism. And he never goes on to address any evidence for denying the existence of God, which is the very hallmark of a frank atheism.

Rejecting this or that religion can be based on either agnosticism or atheism, but anti-religion is a separate and derivative issue, not the base issue.

 

[RAMOSS]

That's a terrible way to find evidence. Your claim is simply the loudest anti-theists represent all atheists. That's demonstrably nonsense.

It is a sword that can cut two ways too. The best reason to reject Christianity is the behavior of vocal Christians.

 

[RAMOSS]

That is like saying that Logicman represents all Christians.

Well, there are others too. THere are other samples here.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

You are an agnostic, and have no need to finesse your frank position.

Our friend rjay's representation of atheism is a finessing:

What, in this paradigm, is the atheist not believing the truth of? That a theist believes that God exists? So the atheist is an atheist by denying the sincerity of the theist?
The rest of the rjay's "Atheist response" is agnosticism. And he never goes on to address any evidence for denying the existence of God, which is the very hallmark of a frank atheism.

Rejecting this or that religion can be based on either agnosticism or atheism, but anti-religion is a separate and derivative issue, not the base issue.

I don't disagree with you there.

If an atheist wants to argue that there is not and cannot be a God, I'll look at the evidence they provide. To date, the evidence has been found wanting.

 

[zyzygy]

Yes it is. Because Athiesm cannot be scientifically ascertained or falsified, it is in fact a belief.
That you do not wish to call it that does not mean it is not.



You have to have total confidence that no form of deity even can exist in order to be an athiest. This cannot be proven, you are merely confident it is the case, and in that, it's a belief and not a fact.

It is disbelief caused by a lack of evidence.

 

[Angel]

I pointed out earlier in the thread that there are many, many theists that make theism, specifically Islam and Christianity, look downright evil.

When the shortcomings of X have been called into question, to point out that Y and Z have the same or similar shortcomings is no defense of X or counterargument to the shortcomings of X.

 

[zyzygy]

I don't disagree with you there.

If an atheist wants to argue that there is not and cannot be a God, I'll look at the evidence they provide. To date, the evidence has been found wanting.

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns? You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It is disbelief caused by a lack of evidence.

It is a belief in a central tenant, that there is no deity period.

lack of evidence does not equal lack of existence. Since you cannot prove non-existence your belief in such is just that.

 

[tosca1]

Once a profound cry of despair worthy of the deepest respect, atheism, under the influence of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Krauss (formerly Hitchens), the self-styled "New Atheists" of the new millennium -- under this pernicious influence, I say, atheism has become a strident exercise in ignorance, by ignorance, and for ignorance.

Some of the stupidest assertions ever made by Man have been made in the last fifteen years in the spirit and letter of New Atheism by educated and intelligent people.

Atheism today is self-contradictory mental pabulum for those incapable of independent critical thinking.

Atheism today is conflated with thoughtless anti-theism without a shred of self=awareness.

Atheism today is anti-religionism scared witless by the tragic historical event of 9/11.

Atheism today is without a single argument

Atheism today is without the courage of its convictions, in vociferous in self-denial that it even constitutes a belief.

Atheism today is just surly, mean-spirited lack of imagination on a mission.

Atheism today is a tale told by an idiot in the mantle of a skeptic.

The prosecution rests.

Atheism is irrational.

 

[Angel]

Can I use your name calling as evidence of all religious folk of their hatred?

Assuming I have mischaracterized today's visible and vocal atheism, then multiply my mischaracterization by a thousand other internet theists, and your evidence will rise to the level of mine.
But I have not mischaracterized today's visible and vocal atheism. What "names" in the OP do you find "hateful"? I daresay they are all apt and free of hatred.

 

[Logician Man]

Atheism is irrational.

Atheism will be around long after theism is non-existent.

 

[Angel]

Atheism will be around long after theism is non-existent.

Atheism now boasts prophets as well! Bene.

 

[Angel]

Simple statistics, your sample size of atheist behaviour is the 4 individuals listed in your OP, that's too small a sample size to draw valid conclusions. Even using atheists you debate online is a flawed sampling method because you're excluding atheists that aren't obnoxiously anti-theistic.

The private personal non-polemical atheism is not included in my brief.
The four individuals mentioned in my OP were mentioned as fountainheads of the type of atheism characterized in the OP.
Am I to understand that the statistics you refer to are available? If not, then we do the same thing, you and I: we assume the statistics, yes?
But you raise an interesting question about induction and generalization. Let's say there are 400 million declared atheists in the world. What number of them would make a fair sampling?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yes it is. Because Athiesm cannot be scientifically ascertained or falsified, it is in fact a belief.
That you do not wish to call it that does not mean it is not.

That you are emotionally compelled to pretend that it is a belief doesn't mean that it is. The quantity 'god' or 'gods' is not falsifiable, testable, demonstrable or even commonly agreed upon by definition. As such, scientific inquiry into is pointless and irrelevant.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in god or gods. Period.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief (a disbelief) that there is no god or gods. It is a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

You have to have total confidence that no form of deity even can exist in order to be an athiest. This cannot be proven, you are merely confident it is the case, and in that, it's a belief and not a fact.

Newp. You clearly don't understand what the term means, which means your assertions about it are as worthless as the OP.

 

[Pedestrian]

Once a profound cry of despair worthy of the deepest respect, atheism, under the influence of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Krauss (formerly Hitchens), the self-styled "New Atheists" of the new millennium -- under this pernicious influence, I say, atheism has become a strident exercise in ignorance, by ignorance, and for ignorance.

Some of the stupidest assertions ever made by Man have been made in the last fifteen years in the spirit and letter of New Atheism by educated and intelligent people.

Atheism today is self-contradictory mental pabulum for those incapable of independent critical thinking.

Atheism today is conflated with thoughtless anti-theism without a shred of self=awareness.

Atheism today is anti-religionism scared witless by the tragic historical event of 9/11.

Atheism today is without a single argument

Atheism today is without the courage of its convictions, in vociferous in self-denial that it even constitutes a belief.

Atheism today is just surly, mean-spirited lack of imagination on a mission.

Atheism today is a tale told by an idiot in the mantle of a skeptic.

The prosecution rests.

What unmitigated bull**** as all we have is what you...want to believe.

 

[Angel]

That you are emotionally compelled to pretend that it is a belief doesn't mean that it is. The quantity 'god' or 'gods' is not falsifiable, testable, demonstrable or even commonly agreed upon by definition. As such, scientific inquiry into is pointless and irrelevant.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in god or gods. Period.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief (a disbelief) that there is no god or gods. It is a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Newp. You clearly don't understand what the term means, which means your assertions about it are as worthless as the OP.

What unmitigated bull**** as all we have is what you...want to believe.

Thank you, gentlemen. You, along with some other members, are making the case for the OP stronger with every post.
Special thanks to Pedestrian for quoting the entire OP. This makes for easy reference when posts like the two quoted here illustrate one or another point made in the OP.

 

[spud_meister]

The private personal non-polemical atheism is not included in my brief.

Then you should clarify it that you're only rejecting polemic atheism.

The four individuals mentioned in my OP were mentioned as fountainheads of the type of atheism characterized in the OP.

That doesn't mean they characterise other atheists.

Am I to understand that the statistics you refer to are available? Of not, then we do the same thing, you and I: we assume the statistics, yes?
But you raise an interesting question about induction and generalization. Let's say there are 400 million declared atheists in the world. What number of them would make a fair sampling?

For a fair sampling, you need an unbiased sample of less than 10%, but greater than 10 of both obnoxious and non-obnoxious atheists (If I remember my stats classes correctly). Internet forums, and people who like to debate religion/atheism, don't form an unbiased sample, neither do popular figures. You could certainly argue there's a trend to obnoxiousness in atheist figures, but you can't extrapolate that to atheists as a group.

 

[Angel]

Then you should clarify it that you're only rejecting polemic atheism.

That doesn't mean they characterise other atheists.

For a fair sampling, you need an unbiased sample of less than 10%, but greater than 10 of both obnoxious and non-obnoxious atheists (If I remember my stats classes correctly). Internet forums, and people who like to debate religion/atheism, don't form an unbiased sample, neither do popular figures. You could certainly argue there's a trend to obnoxiousness in atheist figures, but you can't extrapolate that to atheists as a group.

I thought I had distinguished New Atheism from old-school atheism in the OP, but will accept your criticism that the distinction is not as clearly made as I intended.

These leaders of the movement wrote books and gave interviews and talks and engaged in debates and conferences which are readily available on Youtube. I mention them as influences and sources of New Atheism. The characteristics of the mass phenomenon of New Atheism, both in content and style, derive from their example.

If I follow your explanation of a fair sample, and correct me if I'm wrong, the sort of atheist that I have in my crosshairs would be excluded from a fair sample. So what am I left with?
A hasty generalization? I'll accept that criticism. After all, the alternative is to remain silent in the face of mischief.

In sum, I did not intend to characterize all atheists in the OP terms, but only New Atheists, and my characterization is based only on the New Atheist nrand of atheism as encountered in social media and such part of the public discourse as has been given over to this topic in the last fifteen years. My apologies to old-school atheists if I seemed to tar them with the same brush.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Thank you, gentlemen. You, along with some other members, are making the case for the OP stronger with every post.

The OP never made any case. Why am I not surprised you'd lie about that?

Special thanks to Pedestrian for quoting the entire OP. This makes for easy reference when posts like the two quoted here illustrate one or another point made in the OP.

Good to see you utterly and totally incapable of supporting any of the jackass claims you asserted in the OP.

You're really good at that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That you are emotionally compelled to pretend that it is a belief doesn't mean that it is. The quantity 'god' or 'gods' is not falsifiable, testable, demonstrable or even commonly agreed upon by definition. As such, scientific inquiry into is pointless and irrelevant.

That is all opinion. And it doesn't change the fact your own belief is by definition a belief.

The reason you are trying to avoid that topic is because you feel better then theists by claiming your belief is not a belief.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in god or gods. Period.

No, it is not, it is a belief they do not exist. "A lack of belief" requires you believe the thing you lack belief in isn't worthy of said belief. Claiming your belief is a lack of belief is a circular argument.

Like this from the American Atheists website

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. emphasis theirs

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
.................................................... snip
If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe emphasis mine. Agnosticism is about what you know.

The argument is a closed circle. lack of belief by definition requires you to believe contrary.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief (a disbelief) that there is no god or gods. It is a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Distinction without a difference

Newp. You clearly don't understand what the term means, which means your assertions about it are as worthless as the OP.

Not an argument.

 

[zyzygy]

That is all opinion. And it doesn't change the fact your own belief is by definition a belief.

The reason you are trying to avoid that topic is because you feel better then theists by claiming your belief is not a belief.



No, it is not, it is a belief they do not exist. "A lack of belief" requires you believe the thing you lack belief in isn't worthy of said belief. Claiming your belief is a lack of belief is a circular argument.

Like this from the American Atheists website



The argument is a closed circle. lack of belief by definition requires you to believe contrary.


Distinction without a difference



Not an argument.

Atheism is not a belief.

 

[Angel]

Atheism is not a belief.

Another verification of the OP! What archery on Angel's part!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

That is all opinion. And it doesn't change the fact your own belief is by definition a belief.

No, it's a fact. One that you seem incapable of accepting due to your reliance on making up your own definitions of words.

The reason you are trying to avoid that topic is because you feel better then theists by claiming your belief is not a belief.

The reason you're lying about atheism and what it is is because you emotionally cannot handle having to face that fact that it's not a belief.

No, it is not, it is a belief they do not exist. "A lack of belief" requires you believe the thing you lack belief in isn't worthy of said belief. Claiming your belief is a lack of belief is a circular argument.

No, it's not a belief. It's a lack of belief, meaning one simply doesn't believe, but it doesn't even remotely imply active disbelief.

And it's not a circular argument. It's simply a statement of fact based on commonly accepted definitions of terms. Why try and reference a term you clearly don't understand?

The argument is a closed circle. lack of belief by definition requires you to believe contrary.

No, it's not. Lack of believe doesn't require any belief in in the contrary.

Distinction without a difference

Not to anyone honest enough to be able to accept that word have actual meanings.

Not an argument.

Never claimed it was. It's an observation about your ignorance of the term and the subject matter.

You seem really in over your head here.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Another verification of the OP! What archery on Angel's part!

LOL! Another admission by the OP that the assertions he made were vacuous and dishonest bull****.

 

[it's just me]

Right words, wrong word order.
Atheism hasn't got a clue about Angel.

Well played.