• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why are atheists thought ill of?

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
So, why don't you just claim to be an agnostic? Atheist is an assertion of disbelief, not lack of belief.

I am, for the record, agnostic.

Mostly because of connotations. Agnostic has the connotation that I'm sitting on the fence, which I'm not. And I am stating my lack of belief in god(s), because it's relevant socially. Unfortunately, it causes the same misunderstandings that you had, but nothins' ever perfect, eh?

Also, agnostic atheist is a mouthful, and people wouldn't get it anyway. :p
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Synarch is right about the definition of atheism. It's been bastardized to accommodate other beliefs, but etymologically speaking, it is a belief in the non-exsitence of god. It really depends on how we arrange our affixes but the original definition was intended to mean a belief (-ism) in the non-existence (a- + -theos-) of a god.

a⋅the⋅ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
Synarch is right about the definition of atheism. It's been bastardized to accommodate other beliefs, but etymologically speaking, it is a belief in the non-exsitence of god. It really depends on how we arrange our affixes but the original definition was intended to mean a belief (-ism) in the non-existence (a- + -theos-) of a god.

a⋅the⋅ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

pffft.

A - non.
theism - belief in a deity.
atheism - nonbelief in a deity.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
how does one maintain a non-belief? Wouldn't that be theos + a + ism or theaism? A non-belief, if such a thing were to exist, would require us to pair up the [a- with the -ism] to be morphologically accurate.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
It's as much a leap of faith to believe in no God. They just can't see that.

Do you think it's a "leap fo faith" not to believe in Pink Unicorns?

Although I believe in the existence of a Pink Piranha, somewhere, and she's not that invisible, thank God!...


Why?

---

What is claimed without proof, can be disclaimed without proof.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
It's been bastardized to accommodate other beliefs, but etymologically speaking, it is a belief in the non-exsitence of god.

Heh, the farthest origins of the word were for the people didn't believe in approved gods. Christians were atheists, if you go far enough back. It's actually been unbastardized when it was turned into a more modern word, if you go by its etymology.

how does one maintain a non-belief?

By not having a belief in that particular thing...?

Wouldn't that be theos + a + ism or theaism? A non-belief, if such a thing were to exist, would require us to pair up the [a- with the -ism] to be morphologically accurate.

Think of it this way... there are two groups - theists and atheists... true by definition. What theistic belief do the atheists you think of have to not make them atheist?
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I'm an Atheist in the sense that I don't believe in the Christian/Muslim(etc.) god in the same way that I don't believe in Zeus, Thor or Ra. I don't discount the possibility of their existence but I don't let that possibility influence how I live my life in any way.

I'm not sure why that should bother anyone.

That's very similar to what Bertrand Russel once said:

"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration.

Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go. When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others.

It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless."


Bertrand Russel, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?", 1947 (London)
 

Synarch

Once Was
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,445
MBTI Type
ENTP
Do you think it's a "leap fo faith" not to believe in Pink Unicorns?

Although I believe in the existence of a Pink Piranha, somewhere...


Why?

---

What is claimed without proof, can be disclaimed without proof.

It's a leap of faith to believe there definitely are no pink unicorns anywhere.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Do you think it's a "leap fo faith" not to believe in Pink Unicorns?

Although I believe in the existence of a Pink Piranha, somewhere...


Why?

---

What is claimed without proof, can be disclaimed without proof.

Why must this discussion always dissolve into pink unicorns, flying teapots, lunar landings, and other such tripe? There are plenty of fairly good philosophical arguments that a smart atheist could take on if he were really interested in being reasonable. I cannot empirically prove everything I know about this world (e.g. all bachelors are married men is not an empirical truth, it's a logical truth), but I still know many of these things to be true. No theist is going to take the atheist who comes up with these silly "thought experiments" seriously enough to even consider whether his beliefs are sound. This is a beautiful example of an atheist shooting himself in the foot. If you really want the theist to consider the reasonableness of his position, at least have the courtesy to show him that you've attempt to understand why he believes the things he does.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Heh, the farthest origins of the word were for the people didn't believe in approved gods. Christians were atheists, if you go far enough back. It's actually been unbastardized when it was turned into a more modern word, if you go by its etymology.



By not having a belief in that particular thing...?



Think of it this way... there are two groups - theists and atheists... true by definition. What theistic belief do the atheists you think of have to not make them atheist?

So you're saying that having a belief is now a matter of not having a belief...and you don't see something logically problematic with this claim? :thinking:

Does someone around here have a square circle they could show me?
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
Why must this discussion always dissolve into pink unicorns, flying teapots, lunar landings, and other such tripe? There are plenty of fairly good philosophical arguments that a smart atheist could take on if he were really interested in being reasonable. I cannot empirically prove everything I know about this world (e.g. all bachelors are married men is not an empirical truth, it's a logic truth), but I still know many of these things to be true. No theist is going to take the atheist who comes up with these silly "thought experiments" seriously enough to even consider whether his beliefs are sound. This is a beautiful example of an atheist shooting himself in the foot. If you really want the theist to consider the reasonableness of his position, at least have the courtesy to show him that you've attempt to understand why he believes the things he does.

Because of misunderstandings on our position. When people say "but you can't prove that there is no god". Well, duh. But you also can't prove there is no flying spaghetti monster, teapots in orbit around Jupiter, or invisible pink unicorns, so that argument doesn't work. That is why we come up with these ridiculous thought experiments. To show that it is not our job to disprove god, but the theists job to prove god, otherwise we'll remain in the default position of no belief.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
No, the theist doesn't have to prove anything to the atheist. That's where the real misunderstanding is. The theist has all the proof he needs. The atheist that wants to "enlighten" the theist carries the burden. The theist doesn't need to convince you or I, he's happy to believe the things he does. The atheist who assumes the theist has built his belief on something on a par with spaghetti monsters or fly teapots has really missed the boat in many cases. The best arguments for the existence of god do not rely on empirical absurdity. They rely on logic and empirical evidence that it is available to everyone with a working pair of eyes. Those of us who don't have a belief in god just don't see the empirical evidence in the way the theist does, and the logical arguments, while valid, are intuitively problematic. If the atheist were to acknowledge that he is mistaken in assuming the theist believes in something akin to a pink unicorn, he might actually make some progress in demonstrating why it is unreasonable to maintain a belief in god.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Why must this discussion always dissolve into pink unicorns, flying teapots, lunar landings, and other such tripe? There are plenty of fairly good philosophical arguments that a smart atheist could take on if he were really interested in being reasonable. I cannot empirically prove everything I know about this world (e.g. all bachelors are married men is not an empirical truth, it's a logic truth), but I still know many of these things to be true. No theist is going to take the atheist who comes up with these silly "thought experiments" seriously enough to even consider whether his beliefs are sound. This is a beautiful example of an atheist shooting himself in the foot.

You know, like any professional teacher that works within an university, I use references to go quicker, and the invisible Pink Unicorn is just one of them, as well as the Celestial Teapot.

I don't have time to invent a completely new argument, and besides, it would be meaningless and very pretentious. Honesty requires me to acknowledge who said that first, I'm not a plagiarist. These famous thinkers already explained this way better than we probably would, and the fact that you don't want to understand what they tried to explain is rather a proof of severe lack of intellectual curiosity, and stubbornness.

And believe me :)newwink:), these philosophers were very smart, even if you seem to have the opposite claim. Their "thoughts experiments" are far from being silly. Russel (for instance) was a genius, whether you like him or not.

---

So, please, just stop wasting our time, and read.

That would be a nice change.


If you really want the theist to consider the reasonableness of his position, at least have the courtesy to show him that you've attempt to understand why he believes the things he does.

Do I look like a courteous man? :vader1:

Frankly, I don't care why you want to believe in something, that is your concern only, your private life, not mine.

I'm not here to convert you.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Do I look like a courteous man? :vader1:

Frankly, I don't care why you want to believe in something, that is your concern only, your private life, not mine.

I'm not here to convert you.

No, and you're probably not a very good teacher either. In case you hadn't noticed, I don't believe in god. If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed I do do a great deal of reading. I do know the arguments on both sides of the question. You apparently skipped over much of the required reading on this subject.

I'm betting you don't teach philosophy wherever it is that you supposedly teach. A respectable teacher would have come up with something better than Russell...
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I'm betting you don't teach philosophy wherever it is that you supposedly teach. A respectable teacher would have come up with something better than Russell...

Please, show it to us.

---

Frankly, we have a very different attitude. I'm not here to convert or to "enlighten " theists. I simply don't care and again, that would very pretentious.

Metaphysics are logically and empirically meaningless; so if you want to waste your time on that, that's fine, but don't count on me.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
No, the theist doesn't have to prove anything to the atheist. That's where the real misunderstanding is. The theist has all the proof he needs. The atheist that wants to "enlighten" the theist carries the burden. The theist doesn't need to convince you or I, he's happy to believe the things he does. The atheist who assumes the theist has built his belief on something on a par with spaghetti monsters or fly teapots has really missed the boat in many cases. The best arguments for the existence of god do not rely on empirical absurdity. They rely on logic and empirical evidence that it is available to everyone with a working pair of eyes. Those of us who don't have a belief in god just don't see the empirical evidence in the way the theist does, and the logical arguments, while valid, are intuitively problematic. If the atheist were to acknowledge that he is mistaken in assuming the theist believes in something akin to a pink unicorn, he might actually make some progress in demonstrating why it is unreasonable to maintain a belief in god.

Um... duh. Thank you for telling me what I already know and assuming things about me that are untrue (which you derided me for doing, or at least a label that I identify with).

Of course the theist isn't required to prove anything to me in a physical sense, but if the theist wants me to accept his/her position, then the burden of proof is upon the theist to provide evidence. That is all that I was saying.

Similiarly, if an atheist were to try to tell a theist that god does not exist (as opposed to the position "I don't believe in god"), then the atheist would be required to provide evidence.

This is all about burden of proof. When theists, or even atheists or agnostics or *insert label here* come up to me and tell me to disprove god, then I am not required to in order to maintain logical consistency in my beliefs.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Top