Welcome to TPF's sandbox! :cool:

God has been compared to a Leprechaun by some very clear-headed thinkers who were puzzling over the fact that there's no aleprechaunism (as a label for those who don't believe Leprechauns exist) while there's atheism, a term that draws all the wrong kinda attention (from religious fundamentalists). Here a fatwa, there a fatwa, everywhere a fatwa, fatwa, fatwa! :grin:

Atheism as lack of belief in God is to say that atheism is not a belief that needs to be addressed (if the boxer in one corner of the ring hasn't even risen to fight, the opponent in the other corner is ____ (lack of belief).

A bit intemperate of me to say that. Could you call Dawkins a smug cocksucker? Is the problem with 'cocksucker' or which public intellectual the term is applied to?

Could you call Dawkins a smug cocksucker? — Tom Storm

No doubt he can be. I'm sure some fundamentalists would think so.

Welcome to TPF's sandbox! — 180 Proof

Cheers...

Yes, but my question is about your inital comment. On the sites you mentioned:

Could you call Dawkins a smug cocksucker? Is the problem with 'cocksucker' or which public intellectual the term is applied to? — Tom Storm

Odd, isn't it. Is calling him a cocksucker very far removed from calling him a cunt? "Cunt" is supposedly the worst term of abuse, but that supposition shows both a lack of imagination and experience. In both cock sucking and cunts, the image may be of being the passive partner in the act, the recipient, the one penetrated as opposed to the virile and upstanding penetrant; although in both cases considerable effort may be involved, depending on the circumstances.

Pēdīcābo ego vōs et irrumābō — Gaius Valerius Catullus (c. 84 BC – c. 54 BC)

Should this all be moved to the "respectful dialogue" thread?

Yes, but my question is about your inital comment. On the sites you mentioned: — Tom Storm

It would be the term itself in t'other forum. An immediate ban for it.

So i guess they didn't discuss the details of Latin poetry?

Understand.

You do make me laugh sometimes. Thanks. :rofl: The Catullus was a particular nice touch.

You set 'em up, I bowls 'em down.

No atheist denies the possibility of a god's existence. They just state they don't believe in it.

No religious man or woman denies the possibility of having no god or gods. They just believe that it or they exists.

Belief has no bearing on existence, as does a lack of belief.

When it comes to a being's existence, belief in it has no bearing on it, as does the disbelief.

This is a silly thread. You can't argue beliefs; you can argue logically only, if both opponents in a debate accept the same axioms or same premisses. This is why arguments between the faithful and the atheists always remain fruitless: their starting points are different, and the starting point of either side can't be proven or disproven.

Yes, it can be evidenced or not evidenced; but even still the evidence is not bound to be accepted by the opposing side.

This is a silly thread.

"Cunt" is supposedly the worst term of abuse, but that supposition shows both a lack of imagination and experience. — Banno

SEXISM ON THE FORUMS!!! The bearer of (i.e. the decoration around) a C can be just as capable as the CS.

Mind you, the CS could be either of the sexes. So I withdraw my complaint.

Superb observation. It's quite clear we're cleaning up the mess created by someone else, whoever it was that claimed atheism is a lack of belief. It is a silly thread in that respect, but not entirely - it's an opportunity to explore what went wrong - did this person or these persons unknown :cool: not know the meaning of the word "belief" or is it just a knee jerk response to deflect (intense) crticism from the opposing camp (theists), "Prove it! Go on!". I invite @180 Proof to investigate this further if he has the time and resources to spare.

I can't suss out from the post what exactly you're inviting me to investigate, Smith. Care to elaborate?

Faith is a belief. Is atheism a belief? Is there belief without faith? (Faith connotes belief in god(s); atheism connotes (wrongly) lack of belief.)

I can't suss out from the post what exactly you're invitinh me to investigate, Smith. Care to elaborate? — 180 Proof

Beliefs are statements that can be true/false.

God exists is a belief, it's a statement.

God doesn't exist is a belief, it's a statement.

So, if atheism is a lack of belief, it's missing a corresponding thesis/statement, oui? It, obviously, can't claim god doesn't exist because that's a belief.

Is atheism a belief? — god must be atheist

I think atheism is disbelief in theism.

Is there belief without faith?

Yes. I believe there was a historical figure named Socrates, but I do not (need to) have "faith in Socrates".

We've already danced at this rodeo not long ago, amigo:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/763662 :halo:

We've already danced at this rodeo not long ago, amigo:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/763662 :halo: — 180 Proof

My memory betrays me mon ami! Pardon.

Faith is a belief. Is atheism a belief? Is there belief without faith? (Faith connotes belief in god(s); atheism connotes (wrongly) lack of belief.) — god must be atheist

Faith isn't restricted to a belief in gods. For example, I've noticed that a great many Americans have faith in their Constitution and the democratic process. People in western countries tend to put faith in their legal system (other places, not nearly so much). Many married people have faith in their partners and the institution itself. Far more people than I would have imagined possible still have faith in the future. There is a wide overlap between that faith and a faith in science and technology.

Atheism is specifically a lack of belief in deities. This lack of belief can range from indifference to active, passionate hatred of religion. It doesn't, however, preclude any other form of superstition, or any of the other faiths in the above examples.

I think Atheism would be praiseworthy if it was simple lack of belief. It would amount to awaiting evidence to alter ones beliefs.

But instead we Have Books like "The God Delusion" and The Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

It is clear that atheism has not just left people in a simple state of unbelief but produced other motives in people.

I think agnosticism seems a great stance to takle because it is being cautious and saying I don't know. (South Park did a spoof of Fundamentalist agnostics)

Extremes on all sides of these debates cause fear and anger so lets avoid extremes and brutal dichotomies and exchanging slurs.

But instead we Have Books like "The God Delusion" and The Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution — Andrew4Handel

Why is it so hard to understand that those positions are not taken with regard to a god, but with regard to what men do in the name of that god?

t is clear that atheism has not just left people in a simple state of unbelief but produced other motives in people. — Andrew4Handel

Atheism did not cause those motives; the motives, in reaction to the activities of Holy Roman Church, caused atheism. The priests, by taking possession of and misapplying the god, turned an awful lot of decent people against their version of godhood. The fundamentalists of today, both Christian and Muslim, are doing the same.

The point I am making is that atheists do make claims and do actions caused by their atheism.

I think the problem of doing away way with gods is then that you have to justify norms without reference to gods.

Belief in gods has been used to justify a lot of social norms including the family and the justice system and even the notion of physical laws.

When atheists get involved in the business of creating society their atheism does effect their other beliefs and values.

Why is it so hard to understand that those positions are not taken with regard to a god, but with regard to what men do in the name of that god? — Vera Mont

:100:

Maybe apologists are, in fact, idolators who cannot imagine that their critics are anything but idolators too.

Belief in gods has been used to justify a lot of social norms including the family and the justice system and even the notion of physical laws. — Andrew4Handel

:roll:

We were "justifying social norms" many millennia before "belief in gods" was institutionalized (e.g. animism).

We were "justifying social norms" many millennia — 180 Proof

Yes but now we have science which is being highly successful but does not justify social norms.

So we have society based on something similar to a religion that can't be validated without using premises that have been used to attack religion.

That is on reason I am a moral nihilist myself. I can't see any truth value in moral claims like wise many other "ought" claims and lots of societal values. But people who called themselves atheist had a chance to create societies on their principles such as communists regimes sans gods. Did it succeed?

Maybe your conception of "moral claims" is inadequate for assessing their truth values or you lack a sufficient, or relevant, criteria of truth? :chin:

As an ethical naturalist and fallibilist, the truth value of moral claims about 'what harms persons, other animals and ecosystems' is discernible, ergo preventable or reducible. 'Supernaturalist criteria' for "justifying the moral norms" of natural persons was a brief, maladaptive interlude of the last several millennia out of an almost two hundred millennia span of eusocial h. sapiens existence. 'Divine command theory', as far as I can tell, is moral nihilism (e.g. Plato's Euthyphro, Nietzsche's The Antichrist), and the last century or so of substantive secularization has been and continues to be a struggle against vestigial priestcraft and normative superstitions.

The point I am making is that atheists do make claims and do actions caused by their atheism. — Andrew4Handel

They make claims, certainly. Have you ever fact-checked the claims? How many can you disprove?
They do actions, as everyone does. To which particular actions are you referring here?
How do you know what causes what claims and actions?

I think the problem of doing away way with gods is then that you have to justify norms without reference to gods. — Andrew4Handel

That's your problem, not mine. I think the concept of gods has always been problematic at best; at worst, it has been used as an excuse for horrific acts. Child sacrifice and self-mutilation leap to mind. Also some really very bad legal decisions. Torture and burning at the stake are some of the nastier examples of individual harm, but one might also mention wholesale slaughter in religious wars and wide-spread abuse of indigenous populations. Overall, not a good idea, imo.

Belief in gods has been used to justify a lot of social norms including the family and the justice system and even the notion of physical laws. — Andrew4Handel

All those social conventions existed long before gods were invented. All those social norms existed long before humans walked on two legs.

When atheists get involved in the business of creating society their atheism does effect their other beliefs and values. — Andrew4Handel

Nobody "gets involved in creating society". Society just grew. It's here and we're stuck with it, so we each try to nudge it a tiny little bit in the direction we wish it to go.

As an ethical naturalist and fallibilist, the truth value of moral claims about 'what harms persons, other animals and ecosystems' is discernible, ergo preventable or reducible. — 180 Proof

Why is the truth about what causes harm a moral claim? I don't believe that atheists have ever started a society from scratch without the influence of prior human religions, dogmas and supernatural beliefs etc.

Christians fought against slavery and as mentioned elsewhere David Hume religious skeptic funded a slave venture. Humans from all walks of life and belief systems exhibit extremely diverse contradictory behaviour. We end up with cherry picking again to claim whose system of beliefs is the least corrupt.

The point is however that vocal atheists have spent a lot of time trying to pick apart religion (mainly Christianity as opposed to Islam and Hinduism) but don't make the same demands of lots of other aspects of life that could be said to warrant equal scrutiny which appears to me like selective skepticism.

Total fabrication. All those existed before gods were invented. All those existed long before humans walked on two legs. — Vera Mont

Can you provide evidence for this claim most human societies that have been recorded have been religious, or superstitious, had gods of some sort.

Lots of things like family and weddings and Christmas have very modern components that we mistakenly think are old traditions.

"In most cultures of the world, the beginning of family history is set in creation myths."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family

I don't believe that atheists have ever started a society from scratch — Andrew4Handel

Nobody ever has. Get off that train; it's never leaving the station.

Christians fought against slavery — Andrew4Handel

Some Christians fought against slavery 1600 years after the mainstream churches endorsed it. To wit,

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master.

If you're talking about facts, you need to be less selective, or you might end up with cherry picking again to claim whose system of beliefs is the least corrupt.

— Andrew4Handel

The point is however that vocal atheists have spent a lot of time trying to pick apart religion (mainly Christianity as opposed to Islam and Hinduism) but don't make the same demands of lots of other aspects of life that could be said to warrant equal scrutiny — Andrew4Handel

Why would American and British atheists argue about Hinduism, which doesn't affect them? They do have quite a lot - none of complimentary - to say about Islam. And they also come out in protests against wars and segregation and police violence and the tyranny of capital; they campaign for candidates they consider worthy. But cherry-picklers on a mission miss those tiny fruits.