Be skeptical of theism AND atheism. Too many atheists are skeptical of one only side, theism, and not the other, atheism.
Be skeptical of atheism.
Posts
Total:
220
-->
@Fallaneze
Atheism itself is not a claim. Atheism is simply withholding belief on one particular subject.
-->
@secularmerlin
According to which definition?
-->
@Fallaneze
According to which definition?
When I say I am an atheist all I mean is that I do not maintain a belief in any god(s). This is not tantamount to making any claim.
-->
@secularmerlin
Which definition of "atheism" are you using?
-->
@Fallaneze
What definition are you using? I thought the word just meant that you don't believe in any god(s). If I am an atheist then atheism does not necessitate a claim and therefore is not tantamount to a claim.Which definition of "atheism" are you using?
Atheists make claims atheism is not a claim. Do you see the distinction?
-->
@secularmerlin
How about this one?
"Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."
-->
@Fallaneze
What about it? I am an atheist and my only position is that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any god(s) so unless your working on a no true Scotsman argument I don't see your point.
-->
@secularmerlin
It was a definition of atheism from a reputable source that showed the term "atheism" is a claim, contrary to what you said in post #2. You also seem unable or unwilling to provide a definition of atheism from any source.
-->
@Fallaneze
How many times must I say that atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
It breaks down like this atheist (a)theist (not)theist not a theist.
In fact unless you believe in Zeus and Thor and Maui you too are an atheist, in regards to those gods any way. I simply believe in one fewer than you do.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
This definition is from the same Stanford source you quoted...
"Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods)."
That aligns more with secularmerlin's definition.
-->
@TwoMan
Indeed I am also skeptical of big foot and alien abduction but there is no specific word for those propositions because skepticism on these subjects is the norm. The word atheism only exists because in this one single matter (religion) and as near as I can tell no other belief without evidence is the default.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
To say that one should be skeptical of atheism is tantamount to saying one should be skeptical of skepticism.
-->
@secularmerlin
I guess you don't know of any dictionary definition of atheism.
-->
@Fallaneze
I suppose you are unfamiliar with the no true Scotsman argument. I am an atheist and I do not fit the deffinition you have given ergo your definition is incorrect or at least not all encompassing.
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem is that you're claiming that your view is representative of atheism. That's defined by the word atheism, not your views. You're unable or unwilling to provide a defintion of atheism.
-->
@Fallaneze
The problem as far as I can tell is that you are telling me what I as an atheist must believe and claim. You do not get to tell me what I believe Fallaneze and quite frankly you are generally better than this.
-->
@Fallaneze
Your blowing a lot of meaningless hot air, until you can actually;The problem is that you're claiming that your view is representative of atheism.
1} clarify you definition of what your God is specifically,
2}offer elaborating description of what your God is specifically.
You have done neither ergo this thread is meaningless hot { empty } air { mental constructs }.
Metaphysical-1, spirit-1 ergo suspicious { lack of integrity } spirit-of-intent at best and lacking in any philosophical search for truth at worst.
The truth exists for those who seek it. Ive yet to see Fallenese search for truth in earnest.
As God is The Ultimate Reality, atheism is a denial of absolute truth. It is nihilism.
That being said, not only does nihilism destroy everything, it also destroys itself.
The hard skepticism inherent in nihilistic ways of thinking is a very easy way of avoiding having to think real hard about anything.
15 days later
-->
@Fallaneze
Be skeptical of theism AND atheism. Too many atheists are skeptical of one only side, theism, and not the other, atheism.
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.
-->
@Fallaneze
I guess you don't know of any dictionary definition of atheism.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
Oxford English Dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism)
-->
@Fallaneze
It is advisable to define the term philosophically if you want to have a philosophical conversation on it, or someone may conflate the philosophy with skepticism, or things could be further removed by some sort of claim to personal identity.
Admitting that God exists is not atheism.DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.
10 days later
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
He didn't say it was. He said deism is functionally equivalent to atheism.
-->
@Stronn
Deism literally means belief in God.
That is what the word means.
-->
@Mopac
One thinks relative to acquired information.
Both Atheism and Theism are simply assimilated data. As are scepticism and deism and all other ism's.
-->
@Mopac
Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
Now, what does functionally equivalent mean?
-->
@Stronn
Functionally equivalent is a comparatism.
Just another ism because we can.
Brain generated from acquired, stored and assimilated data.
-->
@Stronn
This is certainly a modern form of deism, but I am simply pointing out that the etymology of the word along with its ancient usage literally means "The belief that God exists"
I don't believe that all forms of deism are functionally the same as all forms of atheism. Some forms of atheism are functionally the same as practicing witchcraft and worshipping idols!
But it appears to me that deism in the modern sense seems to be in denial of God's presence in the universe. If that is the case, that would make it a type of modern dualistic heresy. The idea that God created the universe, stepped back, and is wholly apart from it.
Maybe it is functionally the same ss atheism. It creates such a chasm between creation and God that it might as well be nihilism.
"God is not with us" might be Deism in a nutshell.
I have said it before, but I think it is worth repeating. The logical progression of protestant scholasticism is atheistic secularism.
Neo-gnosticism rears its ugly head!
Deism and theism are simply retro-mysticism as opposed to atheism which could be regarded as neo-pragmatism or even continuo-pragmatism.
Scientifically expounded realism and constructive truisms easily negate fickle humanism.
Nonetheless compounded data input and consequent irrational obstructionism will obviously persist for as long as it is allowed to persist.
Mysticism and associated sensationalism obviously inhibit material evolutionism to a lesser or greater extent. Though these days one is patently aware of a diminishment of existentialism and an increase in the rapidity of both the exponentialism and inevitablism of non-organicism.
If there are any deistically associated truisms, they are more likely to be resultant of human constructivism rather than being based upon universal
precedentialism.
Predispositionism is an obvious ongoing consequence of theistic humanism. Whereas atheism is a development of rationalism, particularly when referenced alongside forward thinking pragmatism and realism.