Club29's Atheism Part 2

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Well, I think most will agree, my atheism was horrible and I sucked at it. But this deserves a deeper look.

To say atheist is to say you don’t believe in God, period. And as I’ve argued before, but yet… I get my own arguments fired back at me, that the best atheist just doesn’t even give an argument against God. But still… I guess I have no right to say best, for that’s only my opinion, and yours.
So my roommate, an atheist, probably better than all of you. Why? he doesn’t even bother entering a religious philosophy forum. He simply does not believe.

But you see if we use this definition as many of you have implied, and maybe I still don’t understand the true nature of atheism, or what it means to be one. There isn’t a Jesus of Atheism. There isn’t something to look at and base an atheistic belief on. And since this is true, Atheism is just that, no belief in God or anything that has to do with the idea of God. Since atheists don’t believe, there is no reason to argue against God for that is just redundant.

So atheism is not an opposite of Theism. Theism believes you need arguments and defenses for your beliefs, it’s demanded. I cannot reverse the idea that the Good Theist doesn’t give arguments for, he just believes, for this would be ignorant. It takes reasons to point to something that isn’t seen.

So I think I can conclude, there is no opposite relationship, even if there is by definition.

So I will say forgive me for my attempts at Atheism. If I wanted to truly try it I would not post about it, I would be it. I wouldn’t take part in Theistic posts to argue against. But the kicker is I’d still view philosophy and everything else the same, Theism does not change my perspective or my thought processes on philosophical or logical arguments.

But because I see the reasons that point to something unseen very striking, I will continue to believe until otherwise.

2

If you are saying what you seem to be, that atheism needs no defence because it claims nothing, then I agree.

But, somehow I’m not sure that is what you want to say.

3

Basically. I wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘no’ defense. But if they really aren’t claiming anything would that not be a choice after they’ve looked at the evidence? So should they not have a reason then? Otherwise it’s closed-minded. So it needs some defense, but I don’t see it needs arguments against God, but maybe possibly theistic ideals. I still can’t be sure though, atheism is very confusing. Many atheist on here say arguments against the existence of God aren’t good, but yet some world renowned atheist are giving arguments against God’s existence. It’s almost as if now we have to ask, what is an argument against God’s existence, and what is not? I mean I personally feel every argument pertaining philosophy is leaning toward the belief or against it, but some I know would not agree.

4

Well, if you take ‘no god’ as a default, but people start discussing there being a god and/or you live in a society where it is generally accepted that there is a god, then (while the burden of proof remains on the theists) arguments do arise.

In Kindergarten, I was explaining to other kids how it would be physically impossible for Santa to exist because he couldn’t possibly visit all children around the world in one night – and also that santa has criteria beyond merely being good since he wouldn’t visit my Jewish neighbor, nor any other Jewish child I knew (most of whom I would have classified as being ‘good’).

While technically the burden of proof ought be on those who did believe in Santa, normative rules generally hold that it is the minority position that has to justify itself.

5

True indeed. Which is why the minority is theism. Even theist want a theist to give a defense.

6

???

Care to share some data on that? Certainly in the US the majority of the population is theistic. Heck, if you look at the breakdown of world-religions, it quickly becomes apparent that the majority of the world is theisitic.

You are gonna need to back that statement up with some numbers.

7

I just backed it up in my last statement when I said even theist want a theist to give a defense. Apologetist are a minority, the defenders are a minority.

8

Your statement was that theists are a minority. That is factually incorrect.

9

Even though you already know this, you don’t know what it’s like to be an Atheist. Therefore you do not understand that the fact there isn’t “something to look at” is the entire essence of what it is to be an Atheist. You’re missing the point, there is no need for a Jesus of Atheism.

10

No I see the point quite clearly. My point is there is no standard at which to declare what is the atheist, so you can’t necessarily call one real or better than another. Even though I was a horrible atheist for some reason, there is no atheist to compare me to that’s better, so that is an incorrect statement. I just didn’t understand atheism the same as maybe some others have.

11

I think the issue is that of sincerity. While there is no standard for one being an atheist, it is possible to say that someone was being insincere.

That said, you never said you were becoming an atheist, just defending atheism. I think the major problem is that atheism remains an aspect of one’s thought processes, not an integral foundation of one’s philosophy. If I decided to defend theism, but discussed the Christian God and the Greek gods as equivalents during the same discussion I’d sound confused too.

12

In a literal sense yes. I was hoping you wouldn’t read it that way. Theism is asked for defense, whether by atheist or theist. It’s not usually the case that atheism is asked for a defense. But as I’ve said, theist apologetists are a minority. Most theist don’t know the first thing about giving a defense, and they’re a minority.

13

Well, I wouldn’t be too sure of your first point. I’ve been hit up by people looking to convert me time enough and they’ve always wanted to know why in the world I wouldn’t believe in their God nor any god. So, I think that there is more of a cause to defend one’s atheism than you are given credit for. In the realm of philosophy, though, or other media such as ILP which have selected for a certain group of people, I would agree that atheism is more rarely asked for a defense.

But you are correct, that apologetists are in the minority and most theists (even some seeking to convert others) don’t know anything about giving a defense. But given how few people know anything about philosophy, we can’t be too surprised by that, now can we? In any given population, the percentage of them who are given to navel-gazing like philosophy is going to be in the minority.

14

Please, just stop. This is only going to result poorly for you in many ways.

15

Club29, you’re a Christian right? Out of interest, do you consider yourself a conservative Christian ie. do you believe the words of the Bible? If you do there’s a point I want to put to you after having read an interesting passage last night.

16

Yes, conservative mostly, but I’m not an extremist. And Yes I believe the words of the bible.

17

However you’ve given no defense, so it really doesn’t.

18

If you honestly believe in the Bible read out the 17th and 18th verses of the 16th chapter of Mark:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover”

You can’t heal the sick neither can you speak new languages or cast out devils: but perhaps you can drink deadly things without suffering harm? I want every Christian to go to a science lab or something and drink deadly poison, make the event a big public thing as well so I can read about it in the news, then if it doesn’t harm you and I’m 100% convinced that you did drink poison I’ll know that you really are believers and that what you believe is the truth.

19

Good question. Here’s a site that talks more about that.
gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/mark16.htm

We know Jesus spoke in parables many times. If we were to ignore that there would be alot more than this to discuss.

20

That’s an informative link but it has not answered my main question, I don’t need any Christian to interpret this for me I can understand what it means pretty well myself thanks.