.

What would a valid form of atheism look like? — whollyrolling

You authored an op in which you wrote the following:

“ Many of the inhabitants of this site seem to respond with strong negative emotion, absent any rationality, to any discussion related to the bible or Christianity…”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

.

How so? I haven't felt any strong emotion about religion or philosophy in quite some time, and I don't see anything unreasonable in asking how valid and invalid atheisms manifest in your opinion, since you mentioned them. — whollyrolling

Do you personally believe there is such a thing as a valid form of atheism, or is that an oxymoron?

.

When you asked Space Dweller “What would a valid form of atheism look like?”, if he has answered “the one in the dictionary”, would you have considered that a valid form of atheism, or are you making a distinction between atheism as a valid belief system and a valid definition of atheism (which you do not consider to be a valid belief system)?

"Not true" includes false and does not denote 'no truth-value' or 'truth-value undetermined'; thus, "not true" is a truth-value. Specifically with respect to theism, I use "not true" to indicate both false theistic claims and incoherent – not even false – theistic claims/concepts.

The atheistic claim can not even said to be false. It's the most incoherent claim one can think of since it speaks about gods one denies the existence of or asks evidence for.

.

Some people label their belief system "Atheism" and then proceed to spend a great deal of time thinking and speaking about God--significantly more time than an average Christian. — whollyrolling

Ha! How true. :up:

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life.

I don't see atheism as a belief system, so if something involves a belief system I don't consider it to be atheism. Some people label their belief system "Atheism" and then proceed to spend a great deal of time thinking and speaking about God--significantly more time than an average Christian. — whollyrolling

I will put this differently. We all have belief systems, whether we are aware of it or not. Every scientific theory rests on a larger framework of beliefs( you could call this a worldview). Atheism isn’t a single belief system. Rather, it refers most generally to a history of evolving god-based beliefs, ranging from fundamentalist to heretical. Atheism is also an evolving continuum of belief systems and there are myriad overlaps between theism and atheism, especially when we consider liberal forms of religion influenced by writers like Kierkegaard, Levinas and Buber. I find many points of agreement with theistic contributors to this forum like Constance and Wayfarer, because their philosophies of religion not not far removed from my philosophical orientation even though I consider myself an atheist. My belief system is likely farther removed from yours, not because you are a theist and I am an atheist , but becuase your philosophy of religion is a more traditionalistic one than the above contributors. I suggest it is not atheism per se that you oppose your faith to , but modern and postmodern belief, whether god-based or atheistic.

You have apparently found a way to bypass these complexities and ambiguities by reducing faith and atheism to cartoonish categories.

You [whollyrolling, Hillary, et al] have apparently found a way to bypass these complexities and ambiguities by reducing faith and atheism to cartoonish categories — Joshs

:up:

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage.
I’ll make you a deal though, if you are not that type of theist. You get all the theists to respect the separation of church and state and ensure no theistic inspired action affects people not of that particular theistic belief and Ill make sure no atheist ever talks about or engages about god ever again. :wink:

... sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage. — DingoJones

:fire:

Fair point. :up:

If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage. — DingoJones

Absolutely agree.

but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves — DingoJones

That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't.

.

That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't. — Hillary

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case.

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case. — DingoJones

"Objection, your honor! The prosecution thinks I admitted guilt. But they didn't say what I'm guilty of!"
"Sustained! Prosecution, proceed!"

What do theists have to share? — whollyrolling

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play.

Completely untrue. — whollyrolling

Yes it is, but I’m a sucker for numbered points so lets see what your refutation is…
1 “not all theists share their belief with others.“
I didnt claim all theists do. In fact if you actually read my post you will see I specifically account for the possibility of theists who aren’t interested in pushing their beliefs on others. I offered that you yourself might be one of these folks.
So no refutation here…lets keep going.
2 “theism can be a rational conclusion.“
I’m not sure about that, perhaps something to be discussed but certainly not a refutation. “Completely untrue” you said. So far, you have not supported this assertion.
3 “ theism is not necessarily associated with a specific religion, or religion in general.”
Sure, theism is belief in god. No necessary structure to theism. Agreed. Never said otherwise. When do you get to the part where what I said is untrue?
4 “ if theism is associated with a religion, or with religion in general, then a person is exercising their individual rights by making such an association and by practising it.”
What are you responding to? Are you sure its something I wrote? I never said anything about association or practice. Who you associate with and what you practice are not my business. The point I was making was it becomes my business once a theist inserts their beliefs outside those domains, specifically in the laws governing how we live.
5 “ theists are no more capable of tearing theism out of themselves than atheists are capable of tearing atheism out of themselves, and anyone who expects either of these outcomes doesn't respect anyone's individual rights--not their own, a theist's, or an atheist's--and could just as easily lose their own rights as remove them from someone else. ”

Depends on what you mean by tearing it out. Ive known both theists and atheists who have flipped their views. Again though, you are talking as though i made some contrary claim. I don’t think I did.
6 “ everyone has autonomy, an atheist can choose, an atheist is not some special category of human incapable of choice.”

Just another non-sequitor. Nothing you said supports your claim that what I said was “completely untrue”.
I think a civil person would apologize for such a clearly false disparagement.

.

One: not all theists share their belief with others. — whollyrolling

"All theists" do not have to "share their belief with others" for theism to dominate cultural traditions and institutions. In the last two millennia in the West, for instance, secularism has been barely (and unevenly) in effect for couple of centuries, and the struggle of inclusive, cultural / scientific literacy and evidence-based thinking against dogmatic Iron Age superstitions and magical thinking continues.

Two: theism can be a rational conclusion.

Agreed, and I await a sound argument for "the truth of theism".

It is not a non-sequitor, as it follows and relates to what you said about no longer allowing theists to bring their theism into institutions--even while at the same time suggesting that atheists should push their atheism into institutions. — whollyrolling

I didnt say that, you aren’t really listening. Most of what you said wasn't about me but some atheist bad actor you have in your head. Keep looking. I was trying to initiate an actual discussion but youre just here to trade snide talking points with snide atheists. Happy hunting.

“Objection your honour, the prosecution is not responsible for the defences review of the charges.”

It was a back and forth of like, 2 posts. I cant help you if you can’t track an exchange that short.

"Not true" includes false and does not denote 'no truth-value' or 'truth-value undetermined'; thus, "not true" is a truth-value. Specifically with respect to theism, I use "not true" to indicate both false theistic claims and incoherent – not even false – theistic claims/concepts. — 180 Proof

I thought there were 3 possibilities with respect to a proposition:

1. True.
2. False.
3. Unknown/Unknowable (undecidable with existing data and/or methods).

Atheism isn’t a single belief system.
— Joshs

It isn't a system at all. It's singular. — whollyrolling

I think you pulled that one out of your ass. What the heck does ‘singular’ mean? A belief system is singular. It’s a holistic frame that includes many elements. Do I need to spell out for you the complexity of issues and ideas that form the basis of a decision whether to believe or not believe in a god? Ask any individual why they are an atheist and they will give you a series of arguments that link together as a totality. This complexity is implied by the decision and it is a system. The meaning of their atheism for them isn’t a dictionary definition but their own personal story and reasons.

I am not a theist. — whollyrolling

I must have misunderstood. What would you call yourself?

Yes, there are three. As I've pointed out (if you'd read my text for comprehension rather than scoring points), "not true" includes "false" and therefore excludes "undecidable".

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play. — Hillary

Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s. Catholic versus Protestant, Evangelical versus Liberal, Christian versus Muslim, Hindu versus Sikh, Sunni versus Shite.... There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another.