• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

Atheists don't believe in gods.
Theists believe in gods.

Seems pretty straghtforward so why theists want to introduce the extra dimension of gnostic/agnostic into the definition is baffling. Well, not that bafflng, everyone knows why they do it. It just makes me very disappointed in their intellectual honesty and integrity.
 
psionl0 said:
It is an idiotic argument when applied to religion as well.

In spite of quoting dictionaries that offer several definitions of "atheist" and in spite of positively declaring that there are no gods, many in this forum will nevertheless insist that atheism means only a lack of belief and nothing else.

It's ridiculous!
Click to expand...

No, your insistence on the exact definition is what is ridiculous, and you don't even want to tell us why you're having this argument, or want to consider the context of the definition.

Theists tell me that there's an invisible monster under my bed. I tell them that there isn't, because I poked around with a pencil, and nothing happened -- atheist.

Then both the theists and agnostics tell me that there still might be an invisible monster under my bed, but it's deftly dodging the pokes of my pencil. I tell them that yeah, there sure might be if we decide to go down that road, but this sort of argument is pointless nonsense, and anyone putting down cookies for this monster is an idiot -- still atheist.

The very fact that atheism is very straightforward and simply rejects baseless fiction seems to confound you, but I'm sure you don't have the same problem with the monster under the bed.
 
Yep. I don’t believe in an afterlife.

I also don’t believe in:
  • talking snakes
  • talking donkeys
  • 500 year old men
  • Women turning into salt
  • sound of horns knocking down stone walls.
  • a man living for three days inside a fish
  • sticks turning into snakes
  • water into wine.
  • walking on water
  • people rising from the dead
And so on and so on.
 
Olmstead said:
No, your insistence on the exact definition is what is ridiculous, and you don't even want to tell us why you're having this argument, or want to consider the context of the definition.

Theists tell me that there's an invisible monster under my bed. I tell them that there isn't, because I poked around with a pencil, and nothing happened -- atheist.

Then both the theists and agnostics tell me that there still might be an invisible monster under my bed, but it's deftly dodging the pokes of my pencil. I tell them that yeah, there sure might be if we decide to go down that road, but this sort of argument is pointless nonsense, and anyone putting down cookies for this monster is an idiot -- still atheist.

The very fact that atheism is very straightforward and simply rejects baseless fiction seems to confound you, but I'm sure you don't have the same problem with the monster under the bed.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Monsters under the bed or invisible dragons in the garage are irrelevant.

The point is that I am NOT the one who insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
 
psionl0 said:
Wrong. Monsters under the bed or invisible dragons in the garage are irrelevant.

The point is that I am NOT the one who insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

Both "lack of belief in god" and "disbelief in god" are part of the atheist package, which is simply a rejection of theistic fiction. If you can't accept this simple fact, you obviously have some ulterior motive, and I can't help you.
 
Olmstead said:
Both "lack of belief in god" and "disbelief in god" are part of the atheist package, which is simply a rejection of theistic fiction. If you can't accept this simple fact, you obviously have some ulterior motive, and I can't help you.
Click to expand...
Why do you respond as if I posted the exact opposite of what I posted?
 
Olmstead said:
Then both the theists and agnostics tell me that there still might be an invisible monster under my bed...
Click to expand...

Definitions of "agnostic" will vary, but most I know, including here, wouldn't use that definition. It isn't "the invisible monster might exist". It's more "the invisible monster is unfalsifiable". This doesn't preclude being an a-invisible monsterist.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Definitions of "agnostic" will vary, but most I know, including here, wouldn't use that definition. It isn't "the invisible monster might exist". It's more "the invisible monster is unfalsifiable". This doesn't preclude being an a-invisible monsterist.
Click to expand...

That's not how I see it. An atheist will also maintain that a god is unfalsifiable, so this isn't a useful distinction. The difference is in what they do with that information. An agnostic will see it as something that leaves the possibility of god open. An atheist will put it amongst the infinite universe of other unfalsifiable things and treat it accordingly.

In the infinite universe of unfalsifiable things, agnosticism makes a special exception in how it treats deities.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Wrong. Monsters under the bed or invisible dragons in the garage are irrelevant.

The point is that I am NOT the one who insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

Not quite. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief. Within that group there are the flavors of agnostics.

And atheists can and do have other beliefs that may be good, bad, or indifferent, and even anti-science or pro-mysticism. But those beliefs don't need to rely on a god existing. Or if they do then that person has not thought it through or has not categorized themselves correctly.

But if you want to find the commonality among all atheists the only one is a lack of belief in a god.
 
psionl0 said:
Many in this forum have insisted doggedly that atheism is just a "lack of belief and absolutely nothing else "AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY OTHERWISE!!!!!!!"
Click to expand...

"Atheism" is lack of belief in gods - that's all. Because by definition "A" is the privative negating the word "theist", i.e. god(s).
 
Yikes, how can such a thing become so damned complicated? Terminology has some overlap, and what it means and how important it is depends a bit on what you're talking about. Atheism is, in the end, a lack of belief in gods, but the manner in which that lack is achieved makes a difference. A baby who has never heard of a god lacks a belief, and a person who has heard of gods and rejected them also lacks a belief, so they're both atheists, but saying this does not explain anything but their present state.

Other ways can be found to explain that lack, and if one is talking about atheism and trying to figure out what makes a person one, then the process behind that lack can be useful to know, and one way to do so is to name the subset of "lack of belief" which describes that.

A newborn baby and an old man who has had a stroke are both contained within the category of "people who cannot speak," but in at least some contexts that definition, while entirely correct, is not very informative.

My house lacks a cat. This is an essential fact, a defining fact, but alone it does not tell you whether I just don't happen to have a cat at the moment, whether I wish I had a cat but cannot for some reason, or whether I shot the cat and buried it. It does make a difference even if a description of the current situation is "I don't have a cat."

I don't recall a past event in which Psion10 has been corrected by someone saying that atheism must only be described as lack of belief, but if he has, it is petty and though I might well be wrong (often enough am) I think that's all he started out to say.
 
psionl0 said:
... insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

bruto said:
Yikes, how can such a thing become so damned complicated? ....

Other ways can be found to explain that lack, and if one is talking about atheism and trying to figure out what makes a person one, then the process behind that lack can be useful to know, and one way to do so is to name the subset of "lack of belief" which describes that.
....
Click to expand...


Let me put it in terms that might be a bit clearer.

The hypothesis that god-claims and reality have no causative relationship is the Null Hypothesis.... i.e. Atheism is the null hypothesis...

So any work that has to be done to prove that gods are not just noise has to be done by the claimers that the god-hypothesis bears any relation to reality.

Atheism is the default rational and sane position in the absence of any other data to prove otherwise.

Note: So far in the history of human perfidy and gullibility, there has not been a single bit of data that can rationally and sanely negate the Null Hypothesis which is Atheism.

Note: In fact... for the last 5 million years of human apes... data collected so far has bolstered and strengthened the Null Hypothesis which is Atheism.

thum_5128262c7c23c53b52.jpg
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Wrong. Monsters under the bed or invisible dragons in the garage are irrelevant.

The point is that I am NOT the one who insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

But then what are you insisting that atheism does mean? If it does not only mean lack of belief, what does it in your opinion mean?

Hans
 
psionl0 said:
Why do you respond as if I posted the exact opposite of what I posted?
Click to expand...

Because your posts frequently contradict one another, so you have in fact posted the exact opposite as well. For example:

psionl0 said:
You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
The point is that I am NOT the one who insists that atheism means only a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...

Dave
 
MRC_Hans said:
But then what are you insisting that atheism does mean? If it does not only mean lack of belief, what does it in your opinion mean?
Click to expand...
This Wikipedia entry has been quoted before: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Even posters who have quoted this entry still reject the "less broad" definitions and insist that only "lack of belief" applies to the definition of atheism.
 
psionl0 said:
It is an idiotic argument when applied to religion as well.



In spite of quoting dictionaries that offer several definitions of "atheist" and in spite of positively declaring that there are no gods, many in this forum will nevertheless insist that atheism means only a lack of belief and nothing else.



It's ridiculous!
Click to expand...
Catch those goalposts...
 
PsionI0 can you go back to your original claim and explain why an atheist can't reject the idea that there is an afterlife and still be an atheist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom