• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Argument Againt Pseudo-Atheism

Not sure whether that last by you refers to the "semantic" problem itself or to my problem with the "semantic" problem.
If your indifference is aimed at the "semantic" problem itself, I would just leave you with the thought that this problem -- the incoherence of thought -- is arguably at the bottom of all our troubles in the world today, and has always been at the bottom of the world's troubles for the whole of the history of mankind.

I get that incoherence is a problem in society. We somehow ended up with a POTUS that is about as incoherent as you can get, and that's a non-stop mess.

There are a couple of theists in these threads that are incoherent to the point I generally ignore them. I'm not usually debating the atheists, so it's entirely possible that I'm missing how bad they are.

Could you provide an example from the leader (Dawkins) that exemplifies the incoherence you are upset about? Or being inconsistent to the point of incoherence? I would ask for examples from people on DP, but I think that may come up against board rules.

Thanks.
 
As I said, it was my suspicion that would be where your position could lead, especially based on some of you previous threads. I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong.

I don’t recognise them as “types of atheists”. There are all sorts of people who post all sorts of things around not believing in gods on the internet (some more seriously and honest than others). Each one of them are an individual responsible only for their own words and actions. There is no justification or legitimate reason to lump them all together like this.

I’ve no idea what you mean by “committing” to belief/disbelief. The problem is that I meet your definition of “pseudo atheist” as you wrote in the OP. If you accept I’m not actually a “pseudo atheist”, you need to either redefine the term or accept it’s unnecessary and divisive and drop it entirely.
Your objection to my generalization is noted. The same objection could be lodged against talk of the generalized theist or generalized Christian. All talk would cease if not for generalizations.

If a person claims that he "lacks belief in god(s)" and means either that he believes that god(s) doesn't exist or that he disbelieves that god(s) exists, then he is an atheist in the old-school sense, a genuine bonafide atheist committed to an atheist view.

If a person claims that he "lacks belief in god(s)" and means that he has no belief or disbelief but a kind of void where belief or disbelief should be, then he is a Pseudo Atheist.
 
If a person claims that he "lacks belief in god(s)" and means either that he believes that god(s) doesn't exist or that he disbelieves that god(s) exists, then he is an atheist in the old-school sense, a genuine bonafide atheist committed to an atheist view.

If a person claims that he "lacks belief in god(s)" and means that he has no belief or disbelief but a kind of void where belief or disbelief should be, then he is a Pseudo Atheist.
I don't see any significant difference between any of those statements, it's just semantics. I certainly don't see enough of a distinction for you to express respect for the first and unbridled contempt for the second.

What practical difference do you see as a consequence of these different statements? Note that I'm not asking about different behaviour in people who you perceive hold each position but the differences as a direct consequence of the actual concepts themselves.
 
...
Could you provide an example from the leader (Dawkins) that exemplifies the incoherence you are upset about? Or being inconsistent to the point of incoherence? I would ask for examples from people on DP, but I think that may come up against board rules.

Thanks.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
From speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, 1992-04-15.

What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in.
Heart Of The Matter: God Under The Microscope | BBC (1996)

An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins on militant atheism, (February 2002)
Or almost any quote from The God Delusion on this page:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
 
I don't see any significant difference between any of those statements, it's just semantics. I certainly don't see enough of a distinction for you to express respect for the first and unbridled contempt for the second.

What practical difference do you see as a consequence of these different statements? Note that I'm not asking about different behaviour in people who you perceive hold each position but the differences as a direct consequence of the actual concepts themselves.
One view is rational; the other view is irrational.
 
If that's your example of Dawkins being rude and nasty you must be ultrasensitive. At least he criticizes ideas, instead of insulting individuals as you do here on a consistent basis.

That is the first time that I have read anything by Dawkins. I detcted no rudeness or nastiness. Perhaps Angel would tell us which quotes are rude and nasty?
 
That is the first time that I have read anything by Dawkins. I detcted no rudeness or nastiness. Perhaps Angel would tell us which quotes are rude and nasty?

Angel is very sensitive. If anyone questions his precious, personal, private intuitions which lead to belief he takes personal affront. He seems to think his preferred ideas are sacrosanct and above critiquing.
 
Angel is very sensitive. If anyone questions his precious, personal, private intuitions which lead to belief he takes personal affront. He seems to think his preferred ideas are sacrosanct and above critiquing.

He is not very sensitive when comes to insulting people who disagree with him.
 
One view is rational; the other view is irrational.
You've not convinced me they actually mean anything different yet, let alone that they're diametric opposites.
 
If that's your example of Dawkins being rude and nasty you must be ultrasensitive. At least he criticizes ideas, instead of insulting individuals as you do here on a consistent basis.
Please try to keep up, man. Alt and I were talking about incoherence.
 
You've not convinced me they actually mean anything different yet, let alone that they're diametric opposites.

A belief is the mental acceptance of a proposition; disbelief, mental non-acceptance.
A theist adopts the mental attitude of acceptance toward the proposition that God exists.
The atheist adopts the mental attitude of non-acceptance toward the proposition that God exists.
The Pseudo Atheist disclaims any mental attitude toward the proposition that God exists.

The Pseudo Atheist seeks to claim a point of view that involves no view.
 
A belief is the mental acceptance of a proposition; disbelief, mental non-acceptance.
A theist adopts the mental attitude of acceptance toward the proposition that God exists.
The atheist adopts the mental attitude of non-acceptance toward the proposition that God exists.
The Pseudo Atheist disclaims any mental attitude toward the proposition that God exists.

The Pseudo Atheist seeks to claim a point of view that involves no view.

The point of view is a lack of belief in gods.

While you point of view is what? What is it you believe exists?
 
Could the aggressive theists on this site be called pseudo-theists?

I don't know about that but I do think they try to hard and definitely over-step their bounds...we are merely the messengers...

"What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God kept making it grow, so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow." 1 Corinthians 3:5-7
 
Pseudo Christians
Poetry by Lance Landall
Some say that they are a Christian, when in fact, such is hardly so,
They really just a Christian in name; it less substance and more show.
Thus within the Christian Bible, it warns how true Christians will act,
And therefore, going by that Bible, the following is a fact:

A genuine Christian person doesn’t hide behind politics,
Nor do they indulge in game-playing, or any underhand tricks.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t wilfully break the law,
Hates bigotry and prejudice, and gossip chooses to ignore.

A genuine Christian person won’t also hide behind the Church,
Misuse position or power, someone’s reputation besmirch.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t act promiscuously,
But firmly stands on principle and always act transparently.

No, a genuine Christian person won’t rape, maim, pillage or kill,
Nor indulge in backroom deals, or what cruelly fuels a rumour mill.
A genuine Christian person will not fiddle the books, or steal,
Nor indulge in lying, cheating, and shared secrets will not reveal.

A genuine Christian person keeps to promises that they’ve made,
Practicing what they preach, not acting vainly, and wealth won’t parade.
And a genuine Christian person always call a spade a spade,
Never forces another’s will, investigation won’t evade.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t violate human rights,
Never goes seeking attention or the limelight, and never skites.
A genuine Christian person defends freedom of expression,
Upholds civil-religious liberty and condemns oppression.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t spit, curse, blaspheme or swear,
But always acts impartially, and never cruelly or unfair.
A genuine Christian person — if they’re blessed with wealth — such will share,
Upholds biblical standards, shuns that extra-marital affair.

No, a genuine Christian person doesn’t verbally abuse,
Never tries to control, manipulate, or others wrongly use.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t damage our fragile Earth,
Nor tells jokes that show bad taste, never indulges in bawdy mirth.

A genuine Christian holds no grudge, seeks to reconcile, forgive,
Shows compassion, mercy, acts justly, and a moral life will live.
A genuine Christian person shows all an open-hearted love,
Honours and guards the Bible that’s entrusted to them from above.

Therefore, only those who act like Christ have the right to claim His name,
And not those who’re acting contrary, for such Christians bring God shame.
You see, either they’re a genuine Christian, or sadly, they’re not,
And those who aren't genuine are usually easy to spot.

So Christianity’s a package, not a case of take your pick,
And nor is it some Pick ‘n’ Mix, or make believe, rhetoric.
No, it’s something that must be lived, otherwise it’s just a sham,
Nothing but pure hypocrisy, which both God and the Bible slam.

Yes, Christians will make mistakes, because we’re all human, quite clearly,
But mistakes are hardly the same as one acting rebelliously.
However, the genuine Christian will try to avoid mistakes,
They knowing that it’s their behaviour that their witness makes or breaks.

I like that a lot...
 
One view is rational; the other view is irrational.

What is rational about believing in gods?

Does he think that Hindus are rational?

That is the first time that I have read anything by Dawkins. I detcted no rudeness or nastiness. Perhaps Angel would tell us which quotes are rude and nasty?

Please answer my question.
Your question was unresponsive, showing once again that you don't read posts or engage in conversation.
Both the rational and irrational in that post refer to atheism.
Also, the conversation about Dawkins concerned incoherence, not rudeness or nastiness.

And now look what you went and did, devildavid! You misled your pal zyzygy, causing him to post a foolish post as well.
See what happens when you don't read and respond?
 
A belief is the mental acceptance of a proposition; disbelief, mental non-acceptance.
That is still all semantics. Saying "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" mean the same thing. The different wording is only used to clarify in the face of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
 
The Counter-Argument

in which pseudo-atheism,

today's internet atheism,

the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,

militant atheism,

polemical atheism,

is or are

decisively answered.


Atheist Apologetics

Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."


Trigger Warning
The following is a rational argument.



The Argument

"To lack" means to be without or to be deficient in some respect.

To lack hope means to be without hope or to be deficient in hope.
To lack strength means to be without strength or to be deficient in strength.
To lack information means to be without information or to be deficient in information.
And so on.

"To lack" is a transitive verb -- it requires an object. The action of lacking is transfered to a particular object.
The object of "to lack" is that which is lacking, and that which is lacking gives content to the lack.
Otherwise, there would be no difference between lacking hope, lacking strength, lacking information, etc.,
and there would be a generic state of lack without content,
which is absurd.

Lack is a state, and that state has content, and that content is provided by the object of lack, by what is lacked.

To lack belief is a state, the content of which is the belief that is lacked.
To lack belief in God is a state, the content of which is the belief in God.

Belief in God is the content of a lack only when that belief is not held in the mind that lacks it.

And whatever in the way of belief is held in the mind, is mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not held in the mind, is not mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not mentally accepted, is not believed.

Therefore, to lack belief in God is not to believe in God.

QED


Disclaimer
No atheists were harmed in the making of this post.

I'm sorry but I take your post as another jab at folks who don't believe in your god, not a post in good faith.

That to me makes you a christian in name only since your intent was to disrespect people claiming to be atheists. Like me.
 
Back
Top Bottom