Amongst the Illogical: The Non-position Position or Atheism

[Guest]

The following argument was presented as a counter to the belief that atheism is both a position and a "mere lack of theism." The discussion is open to anyone.

Premise 1: A position adheres to something.
Premise 2: Atheism adheres to nothing.
Inference: Therefore, to be logically consistent, one cannot consider atheism to be a position and a mere lack of theism.

 

[coelacanth]

As this is a new thread, I will suggest beginning it all over from scratch. I know that I have a position on the god-question, and I am curious if there may be a problem with the definition I chose to use for it. I deem it worthy of exploration.

If someone has a "mere lack of theism" due to never having thought about it or considered it at all, then I would probably agree with you that they have little or nothing to contribute to a conversation about it.

I consider myself an atheist, but I have huge amounts of experience in looking into the question of God's existence, and I adhere to the evidence against the existence of a theistic/ personal God (particularly those proposed by all of the sects of Christianity that I have come across; there are some 38,000 of them out there) as well as the conspicuous nature of the lack of evidence supporting such an entity's existence. That, in short, is what has led to my lack of theism. There is simply no reason to believe, plenty of reasons not to, and even more reasons to be opposed to organized religions where people claim to actually know something about their personal God.

Is there a necessary re-working of the definitions involved? I am curious. Let's explore.

 

[Guest]

I am curious if there may be a problem with the definition I chose to use for it.

Yes, it is a definitional problem. Many modern atheists have come to adhere to this absurd definition. Sadly, it has reached the status of orthodoxy amongst many atheists without any consideration given to the consequences of such a definition. They then proceed to make asinine and contradictory claims like atheism is a position.

If atheism is a position, then by definition it must necessarily contain some belief(s).

I believe we have both come to an agreement on this point. This leaves two choices. Atheism can be redefined to include beliefs, or the claim that atheism is a position can be retracted.

 

[coelacanth]

I am curious if there may be a problem with the definition I chose to use for it.

Yes, it is a definitional problem. Many modern atheists have come to adhere to this absurd definition. Sadly, it has reached the status of orthodoxy amongst many atheists without any consideration given to the consequences of such a definition. They then proceed to make asinine and contradictory claims like atheism is a position.

If atheism is a position, then by definition it must necessarily contain some belief(s).

I believe we have both come to an agreement on this point. This leaves two choices. Atheism can be redefined to include beliefs, or the claim that atheism is a position can be retracted.

I think that if someone does have a position on the existence of God, and that they have a lack of belief in God, that the lack of belief must be founded on belief in something else. For me, that something else is evidence; I believe in a need for evidence before making fanciful claims about the supernatural. The good, hard evidence out there - from exploration of tangible reality - suggests that many of the claims of theists are dead wrong, and there is no solid evidence for the supernatural, and that the claims that such evidence exists are (usually) quite easily debunked. In short, I believe that the evidence slants the probability of God's existence so far towards zero that I simply cannot accept the idea.

After consideration, thanks for pointing out this aspect of the flawed definition, and I guess I'll have to be more careful about how I define it in the future. From what you know of my views, what would you suggest I call my position or how I should define atheism?

I'll have to give this further consideration, and pass it along to my atheist friends

And you wondered why I came here... there is always something more to be learned on complex issues such as theology, and this time, it was I who did the learning. Kudos and thanks!

 

[Guest]

From what you know of my views, what would you suggest I call my position or how I should define atheism?

You don't need my permission. You can define atheism as the belief that your left toe is hairier than your right toe. This would not bother me so long as you clearly define what you mean by the term and use it consistently.

 

[coelacanth]

haha, I'm not asking permission! I was trying to make sure I had a definition that didn't accidentally include a contradiction in terms and didn't unnecessarily confuse people when they ask. I guess it'll just have to be a lengthier explanation! It's not a one-word thing, I guess.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I am curious if there may be a problem with the definition I chose to use for it.

Yes, it is a definitional problem. Many modern atheists have come to adhere to this absurd definition. Sadly, it has reached the status of orthodoxy amongst many atheists without any consideration given to the consequences of such a definition. They then proceed to make asinine and contradictory claims like atheism is a position.

If atheism is a position, then by definition it must necessarily contain some belief(s).

I believe we have both come to an agreement on this point. This leaves two choices. Atheism can be redefined to include beliefs, or the claim that atheism is a position can be retracted.

I would look at it as Atheism having a set of beliefs therefor being a position. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or one God. Their position is that there is no God.

 

[JoJo]

I think it's pretty simple. Theism believes in a god or God. Atheism (the opposite of theism) believes there is no god or God. Both are positions of belief.

 

[Guest]

Well, words can carry different meanings for different people. There is no 'right' definition of a word. So, we cannot tell someone how they must define themselves, but rather expect them to clearly define what they mean by a term when it becomes clear it is inconsistent with the norm.

 

[coelacanth]

Well, words can carry different meanings for different people. There is no 'right' definition of a word. So, we cannot tell someone how they must define themselves, but rather expect them to clearly define what they mean by a term when it becomes clear it is inconsistent with the norm.

Agreed, I thought it would be a better phrasing and avoid having to explain repeatedly after people ask, "well how do you know there's no God?"... I don't, and can't prove it, and it can't be proven that there is a God, either. I suppose I have a belief that the evidence in the world can be trusted as a reliable indicator regarding the existence of the type of God that Christians believe in. Apparently not everyone here agrees with that way of looking at the evidence, and others who interpret the evidence differently... so in that sense, I would call my atheism a belief.

 

[GojuBrian]

If atheists don't believe in anything then why do they want to convert us to it?

A= they want us to believe evolution. :naughty

 

[Shamwow]

If atheists don't believe in anything then why do they want to convert us to it?

A= they want us to believe evolution. :naughty

Because when you base your views about the world based on a single book authored by people who thought seizures were a sign of being possessed, it tends to cause some problems for other people.

 

[JoJo]

If atheists don't believe in anything then why do they want to convert us to it?

A= they want us to believe evolution. :naughty

Because when you base your views about the world based on a single book authored by people who thought seizures were a sign of being possessed, it tends to cause some problems for other people.

Can you be more specific? What problems?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

If atheists don't believe in anything then why do they want to convert us to it?

A= they want us to believe evolution. :naughty

Because when you base your views about the world based on a single book authored by people who thought seizures were a sign of being possessed, it tends to cause some problems for other people.

I have a book for you that is fantastic whether you are an Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. "The Case for Christ". It is written by Lee Strobel, an award winning journalist that was an Atheist when he started the research for the book. It does a pretty darn good job of analyzing the most common objections to Christianity and Jesus specifically. Check it out and I think you will find exactly what Christians hang there hat on at the end of the day to profess their belief in God, Jesus and the like.

I found the book to be very engaging and enlightening. I think you will enjoy it as well.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

If atheists don't believe in anything then why do they want to convert us to it?

A= they want us to believe evolution. :naughty

I don't see anyone in this thread trying to convert anyone. Granted, some Atheist groups are all about this but the folks that have posted here seem to just want to have a conversation about it which I am cool with. I think it would be wrong to place all Atheists in the category of "trying to convert us". Just my thoughts.

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

If you demand concrete evidence as a condition of belief in a personal God, you will never find it. Not because its not there, but because of your prejudice. You don't want to believe in God, and therefore any "proof" of God's existence will be explained by scientific phenomena. The Big Bang. Evolution. Parallel universes. All are scientific theories presented as fact (or as plausible explanations for the existence of the universe, string theory, etc...) that athiests will believe before believing in a personal God. There will always be a possible explanation against God until you truly open your mind and heart to the possibility God might be just as plausible as other ideas.

 

[coelacanth]

If you demand concrete evidence as a condition of belief in a personal God, you will never find it. Not because its not there, but because of your prejudice. You don't want to believe in God, and therefore any "proof" of God's existence will be explained by scientific phenomena. The Big Bang. Evolution. Parallel universes. All are scientific theories presented as fact (or as plausible explanations for the existence of the universe, string theory, etc...) that athiests will believe before believing in a personal God. There will always be a possible explanation against God until you truly open your mind and heart to the possibility God might be just as plausible as other ideas.

You raise very good points, but I don't think it all applies to me personally.

 

[wavy]

Lot's of ignorance in this thread.

Firstly, with regard to the OP, to have no 'position' on an issue is not to be 'illogical'. Secondly, an 'atheist' is traditionally defined as one who believes no God exists on either probabilistic or logical grounds. And even though negative atheism (so-called 'weak atheism') is growing more and more common, it isn't strictly true that it has no position. If anything, one might say that the position of the weak atheist, the one who lacks belief in God, is that the evidence for God is unsatisfactory, without warrant for belief.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Lot's of ignorance in this thread.

Bravo. Let's begin with a personal attack.

Firstly, with regard to the OP, to have no 'position' on an issue is not to be 'illogical'.

The illogical aspect is claiming a non-position to be a position.

Secondly, an 'atheist' is traditionally defined as one who believes no God exists on either probabilistic or logical grounds.

Regardless, atheism is often defined and defended as merely the lack of theism. I have provided sufficient evidence to support this point elsewhere.

And even though negative atheism (so-called 'weak atheism') is growing more and more common, it isn't strictly true that it has no position.

Atheism is the lack of theism and nothing more. This definition means atheism has only one attribute which is the lack of theism. This definition supports the common atheist claim that babies are atheists. It also supports that rocks, colors, and barbie dolls are atheists. How can inanimate objects with no brain have a position? It is impossible because a position requires mental activity. Hence, atheism, according to their own usage, must be nothing more than the lack of theism.

If anything, one might say that the position of the weak atheist, the one who lacks belief in God, is that the evidence for God is unsatisfactory, without warrant for belief.

Yes, absolutely. However, the problem is one for the "lack of theism" atheists. They are inconsistent with their own definition of atheism. That's why I consider the definition absurd.

 

[walter]

As this is a new thread, I will suggest beginning it all over from scratch. I know that I have a position on the god-question, and I am curious if there may be a problem with the definition I chose to use for it. I deem it worthy of exploration.

If someone has a "mere lack of theism" due to never having thought about it or considered it at all, then I would probably agree with you that they have little or nothing to contribute to a conversation about it.

I consider myself an atheist, but I have huge amounts of experience in looking into the question of God's existence, and I adhere to the evidence against the existence of a theistic/ personal God (particularly those proposed by all of the sects of Christianity that I have come across; there are some 38,000 of them out there) as well as the conspicuous nature of the lack of evidence supporting such an entity's existence. That, in short, is what has led to my lack of theism. There is simply no reason to believe, plenty of reasons not to, and even more reasons to be opposed to organized religions where people claim to actually know something about their personal God.

Is there a necessary re-working of the definitions involved? I am curious. Let's explore.

With respect to your position I submit my view.

I believe In God because I have experienced Him in my life. I have never seen Him in actuality but I believe he exists. I know in my heart that He exists. I cannot nor would I ever try to make you believe in God because I cannot transmit to you with any effectiveness my personal experiences.
My belief is a matter of faith and illogical as you may think my faith is it is my faith none the less. I often wonder if those athiests who are hell bent on trying to shake my faith aren't actually exercising a faith of their own. One that is equally unprovable in a corporeal world.
I am not speaking of the thread starter here, but I have had many experiences with atheists who, it seemed to me, were actually closet believers who simply loathed the church systems of this world.