• 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

psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the Wiki definition you quote lists various degrees of atheism, from the very broadest to more specific. So when somebody speaks of atheism it is entirely reasonable to initially assume the broadest sense, as this encompasses all variations. There is nothing irrelevant, ridiculous, or unreasonable about that.

Also, obviously, being an atheist does not entail subscribing to some specific gospel. All it must entail is indeed lack of belief in deities. Thus, you have to respect all the individual flavors; you can't say "you are not a true atheist" to anybody, as long as they identify as one.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Obviously, the Wiki definition you quote lists various degrees of atheism, from the very broadest to more specific. So when somebody speaks of atheism it is entirely reasonable to initially assume the broadest sense, as this encompasses all variations. There is nothing irrelevant, ridiculous, or unreasonable about that.
Click to expand...
The Wiki definitions are not ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is quoting the Wiki then claiming the more specific definitions don't ever apply.
 
Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apparently psionl0 meant the exact opposite of that, which should be obvious to anyone because s/he claims to have explained that. But how can we tell s/he didn't mean the exact opposite of the explanation?

Dave
 
psionl0 said:
..... or it could just be a simple exercise in logic.

Since the concept of an afterlife is closely intertwined with the concept of gods, I fail to see how a person who does not have an actual belief that there are no gods can nevertheless have a firm belief that there is no afterlife.
Click to expand...

That failing is entirely on you. The rest of us have no trouble with logic and the English language.
 
Atheist means that a person doesn't believe in god/gods. It might mean either a lack of belief (sometimes called agnostic atheist) or a belief in the non existence of god/gods (sometimes called gnostic atheist or antitheist). IMHO both belief and disbelief is a spectrum.

Atheists usually don't believe in afterlife but some do. For example quite many Buddhists believe in reincarnation while they might lack any belief in a personal god.
 
Leumas said:
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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262c7c23c53b52.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, we can all agree that atheism is the default position because theism is without foundation. Fine.

But in the actual real world in which we live, our natural and natal atheism is attacked by theists, and certainly, obviously, many accept the imposition. I contend that those who do not are doing something.

It is, of course, true and obvious that the result of that something is the same as if one had not been bombarded with the claims of theistic culture, upbringing, and literature - a return to the default or a persistent defense of it. While the default description of absence is complete with regard to what exists, it is incomplete and lacking useful information and meaning with regard to how that came about.

To say, for example, that an atheist is a person who has rejected the idea of gods, while it does not describe all atheists, describes a person who has chosen to join or rejoin the superset of "people who lack a belief in gods." In the world of today that choice is often burdensome and difficult, with severe cultural consequences.

If you are asking only "what is the basic thing which all atheists have in common," then yes, lack of belief in gods is a short definition, but because actual atheists in the actual world are individuals with different stories, I think it's not informative. I think that's especially true in the case of adult atheists in most of the world of today, and describing an adult atheist in the prevailing culture of most of the world as asserting the nonexistence of gods is not to deny membership in the overall set of godless people but to provide some useful information about the individual.
 
bruto - but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread - which is if you claim there is no afterlife you can't be an atheist.

I'm still waiting for the, er I'll be generous, logic behind that claim.

psionl0 said:
Roger Ramjets said:
After death there is nothing for us - neither misery nor happiness - just nothing. Which is also a reward - no pain, no misery, no worry, no regrets - for eternity.
Click to expand...
You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe not that one. Add a little grape concentrate, some yeast and some time. I do it quite often.
 
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?

Hans
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Are you going to answer MRC_Hans' question?
 
psionl0 said:
The Wiki definitions are not ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No and I didn't say they were.

What is ridiculous is quoting the Wiki then claiming the more specific definitions don't ever apply.
Click to expand...

Who says they don't ever apply? Certainly not I.

However, the wide range of valid definitions means that you cannot imply any specific flavor of atheism a priori. E.g., you cannot assume to hold me accountable for one of the more narrow definitions unless I specifically subscribe to it. For me, atheism is lack of belief in gods, period.

Hans
 
psionl0 said:
The Wiki definitions are not ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is quoting the Wiki then claiming the more specific definitions don't ever apply.
Click to expand...

No-one (as far as I am aware) is claiming that the more specific definitions don't ever apply. Atheism is a broad church*. It includes everyone that is not a theist - from those that have never encountered the concept of gods, to those that have rejected the idea of gods for ethical, logical or personal reasons. The defining characteristic is not being a theist.

These are all atheists, in the same way that the various flavours of Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, and so on are all theists. They don't all believe in the same god (or gods), but they believe in some variety of god/s: therefore they are theists.



*Pun intended.
 
Steve said:
What? You don't think the semantics on display here are of vital social import?

My ability to maintain my atheism will be in serious doubt if I am not able to agree on a blanket definition.



:p
Click to expand...


Not so much the semantics per se, not so much the topic itself, as the treatment of it. A classic pthread, this.
 
bruto said:
Yes, of course, we can all agree that atheism is the default position because theism is without foundation. Fine.

But in the actual real world in which we live, our natural and natal ....
Click to expand...


Juror #7: Your Honor... I do not understand... you want us the Jury to find the defendant NOT guilty if the prosecution did not convince us that he is guilty?

Judge: Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" that is the law.

Juror #9: But your Honor... what if we are not convinced he is not not guilty... how can we while so agnostic about the defendant's guilt and having doubts that he might be indeed guilty... just find him innocent just because the prosecution failed to show any evidence for his culpability?

Judge: if you have no evidence that he is guilty then he is not guilty irrespective of your prejudice due to your gut feelings... guts do not count in the law... unless proven guilty he is not guilty.

Juror #11: But your Honor...

Judge: No buts or guts... not proven guilty means "not guilty"... I think your problem is that you do not understand the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"... this court of law is not trying to prove the defendant innocent... it is trying to prove the defendant guilty... and if it has failed to prove that... then you HAVE TO find the defendant NOT guilty... regardless of your feelings and agnosticism about his innocence... your agnosticism about his guilt is all that is needed to acquit the defendant of being guilty.


bruto said:
...
But in the actual real world in which we live, our natural and natal ....
Click to expand...


In the natural world that we live in lynching was the norm and irrationality and imbecility IS the norm and the commonsense is in fact nonsense and illogic and gullibility and perfidy and sordidness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom