Amongst the Illogical: The Non-position Position or Atheism

[wavy]

Bravo. Let's begin with a personal attack.

A criticism directed at no one and based upon a general observation could hardly constitute a 'personal attack.'

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

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

Nevertheless you neglected the traditional definition. This is an irrelevant semantic game that has nothing to do with what atheism, by any of its definitions, actually is. You say 'claiming a non-position to be a position' is 'illogical', but how does this represent atheism? It doesn't. See further below.

Atheism is the lack of theism and nothing more. This definition means atheism has only one attribute which is the lack of theism.

See red. You just conceded this as false above.

atheism Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none.
-- S. Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, OUP, 2008, p. 27.

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.

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.

What you experience as 'common' about atheism, or rather, how it is popularly affirmed or assented to, has nothing to do with atheism proper. Some Christians popularly explain the Trinity in analogies that admit of Modalism (H20, etc.), but you don't see me attacking Christianity on the basis of popular misunderstandings of official Christian dogma.

Nothing is 'absurd' about recognizing that peculiar definition of atheism as a 'lack of belief in God/s', supposed 'problems' posed by vulgar conventions notwithstanding. This definition of atheism by itself states nothing about it being a 'position', whatever you may have heard. So this thread is entirely useless.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Guest]

wavy,

My argument is based upon a definition of atheism provided by atheists. You are assuming my argument was intended to address "traditional" or "proper" atheism. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

Nothing is 'absurd' about recognizing that peculiar definition of atheism as a 'lack of belief in God/s', suppose 'problems' posed by vulgar conventions notwithstanding. This definition of atheism by itself states nothing about it being a 'position', whatever you may have heard. So this thread is entirely useless.

Well, except, the atheists who claim to "merely lack theism and nothing more" are the same atheists who claim atheism is the default position.

 

[wavy]

My argument is based upon a definition of atheism provided by atheists. You are assuming my argument was intended to address "traditional" or "proper" atheism. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

I don't take desultory google searches as authoritative in matters of philosophy. In any case, see red highlight: True, and that was a gesture of charity on my part because it's even more misleading of you to attack something that does not represent what atheism actually is and ascribe it to atheism anyway.

Well, except, the atheists who claim to "merely lack theism and nothing more" are the same atheists who claim atheism is the default position.

In the rational sense that I already described: that there is no reason to believe in God until sufficient proofs for believing in God are supplied. My point stands, this thread is useless.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Guest]

I don't take desultory google searches as authoritative in matters of philosophy. In any case, see red highlight: True, and that was a gesture of charity on my part because it's even more misleading of you to attack something that does not represent what atheism actually is and ascribe it to atheism anyway.

Let's review my original post, shall we?

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

It is clear my argument was directed at a specific belief. I have presented evidence that such a belief exists.

Well, except, the atheists who claim to "merely lack theism and nothing more" are the same atheists who claim atheism is the default position.

In the rational sense that I already described: that there is no reason to believe in God until sufficient proofs for believing in God are supplied. My point stands, this thread is useless.

Haha, okay. You are certainly entitled to your belief.