Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Jack by the hedge]

The problem with defining atheism as a "lack of belief in gods" is that it could equally be defined as a "lack of belief in no gods".

There are definitely degrees of atheism but basically, once you have been introduced to the concept of gods and rejected them, it is no longer simply a "lack of belief".

I'd say "and rejected them" seems to be doing most of the heavy lifting there. You're narrowing your view to those who have learned that there is this category of beings and have formed the opinion the whole category are entirely imaginary. Then you declare they have this opinion.

You're rejecting as if irrelevant any who might have learned of the category, not have formed any belief in a member of the category yet also not have fixed their opinion on the whole category being imaginary. Yet those are literally the subset of people covered in your first sentence who have neither belief in gods nor in no gods. They are clearly not theists yet for some reason it bothers you they might be not-theists, i.e. atheists.

 

[psionl0]

Sorry for being a bore - but we've still not tackled the opening post of this thread.

Why can't you be an atheist and hold that after death that there is nothing?

That discussion ended a while ago.

I stated that an afterlife is associated with religion and others say "no, you can be an atheist and still believe in an afterlife".

Since this is a purely theoretical discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.

 

[psionl0]

Q: Do gods exist?
A: There is no evidence that indicates that they do. So no.
Where is the belief?

The belief is in the highlighted part. Without that conclusion, no belief has been stated.

 

[psionl0]

I'd say "and rejected them" seems to be doing most of the heavy lifting there.

If asked directly if gods exist, there is no room for fence sitting any more - unless you wish to Bob the questioner (but then you are just being evasive).

 

[Chanakya]

If it is not a "lack of belief in no gods" then it must be a "belief in no gods". Which one is it?

Very simple answer: It is both.

That's the root of your confusion. If the confusion is honest, then it can be easily resolved by focusing on this one single issue. Of course, if this confusion is deliberate obfuscation, then I suppose you'll carry on doing this weird pdiscussion thing, across twenty more pages of this particular pthread, as well as god knows how many other pthreads.

Lack of belief in gods in the superset; and belief in no gods is one subset of it.

(And it's not just that different people will be at different 'levels'; it is also that, strictly speaking, different kinds of god ideas will rationally demand different kinds of positions taken on. But the net result of all of that boils down to one single thing: lack of belief in gods; of which one particular subset is belief in no gods.)

-----

It. is. both. This, as well as the other.

End of?



-----
eta: Or, to put it more succinctly:

How many gods do you believe in?

 

[Chanakya]

That discussion ended a while ago.

I stated that an afterlife is associated with religion and others say "no, you can be an atheist and still believe in an afterlife".

Since this is a purely theoretical discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.

It ended, because you, to quote a certain wise man, insist on putting your head in the sand.

There are indeed real-life instances of people believing in afterlife, and yet not believing in God (at least not with capital G, although those belief systems do incorporate gods, plural, and with small g, and more correctly referred to as deities I guess rather than God). This has been pointed out more than once in this thread.

You continue to pretend this isn't a thing, which is ...curious. One easy explanation is deliberate dishonesty. The other is, I suppose, such deep-rooted cognitive dissonance that you are unable to see what is right there in front of you, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you.

It's a venn thing. There's belief in the afterlife. And there's belief in God. And there's the part where the two circles intersect.



eta: Buddhism has been mentioned as one obvious mainstream example of belief in afterlife without belief in God, capital G. Jainism also, I guess. I suppose Judaism, some flavors of it, might be thought of as mainstream example of belief in God without necessarily bringing in belief in afterlife? (Not sure about the last, and happy to be corrected on it by those better informed.)

 

[bruto]

Q: Do gods exist?
A: There is no evidence that indicates that they do. So no.

Where is the belief?

The belief is inherent in the statement. To make that statement, someone (it could even be yourself), somewhere, somehow, has asserted that such a thing as a god is conceptually meaningful, and has likely pointed out that somewhere, someone, somehow, has suggested that some god at least might exist. "So no" is an assertion that implicitly involves some belief, at a minimum the belief that the concept exists and makes enough sense to be addressable.

 

[Steve]

The belief is in the highlighted part. Without that conclusion, no belief has been stated.

No belief was stated in my comment that you quoted. You find it necessary to add an unneeded component to make your position work. And you claim that is "logic"? It is not, it is merely a failed, and rather pathetic, argument that has no supporting evidence.

I believe, in the colloquial non-religious sense, things that have adequate evidence for their existence. The existence or non-existence of gods does not fall into that range of beliefs.

 

[Steve]

The belief is inherent in the statement. To make that statement, someone (it could even be yourself), somewhere, somehow, has asserted that such a thing as a god is conceptually meaningful, and has likely pointed out that somewhere, someone, somehow, has suggested that some god at least might exist. "So no" is an assertion that implicitly involves some belief, at a minimum the belief that the concept exists and makes enough sense to be addressable.

Yes the concept of gods exists. There is ample evidence for that thus I accept that concept. (Although I question whether the concept in any way "makes enough sense"). There is no evidence for the actual existence of gods. The consequences of the acceptance of that lack of evidence in no way imply a belief.

FTR I hate dictionary definition wars, but have no problem with the uses of the word belief as colloquial non-religious shorthand synonyms for more complicated concepts. I completely reject the idea implied by certain few posters on this board that use of the word belief in that context has any connection whatsoever to the use of the word belief as used by religious adherents in relation to their deities.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If asked directly if gods exist, there is no room for fence sitting any more - unless you wish to Bob the questioner (but then you are just being evasive).

Define "gods".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If asked directly if gods exist, there is no room for fence sitting any more - unless you wish to Bob the questioner (but then you are just being evasive).

Not everyone in the world is obliged to be at the same point in their consideration of imaginary beings as you are.

 

[bruto]

Yes the concept of gods exists. There is ample evidence for that thus I accept that concept. (Although I question whether the concept in any way "makes enough sense"). There is no evidence for the actual existence of gods. The consequences of the acceptance of that lack of evidence in no way imply a belief.

FTR I hate dictionary definition wars, but have no problem with the uses of the word belief as colloquial non-religious shorthand synonyms for more complicated concepts. I completely reject the idea implied by certain few posters on this board that use of the word belief in that context has any connection whatsoever to the use of the word belief as used by religious adherents in relation to their deities.

Yes, this latter is my point. I think some people recoil from the idea that a statement implies a belief because they presume it is attempting to sneak religious faith through the back door.

 

[bruto]

Not everyone in the world is obliged to be at the same point in their consideration of imaginary beings as you are.

Just the use of the word "imaginary" implies some judgment, doesn't it? It's the case even when you say truth is true, or that the obvious is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't say it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Just the use of the word "imaginary" implies some judgment, doesn't it? It's the case even when you say truth is true, or that the obvious is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn't say it.

Yep. "Imaginary" is my choice of word, but I don't demand everyone else in the world accede to the description.

 

[Darat]

That discussion ended a while ago.

I stated that an afterlife is associated with religion and others say "no, you can be an atheist and still believe in an afterlife".

Since this is a purely theoretical discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.

Fair enough - and sorry I'd genuinely missed your retraction.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Define "gods".

Aaaaah, now those will be the ones not believed in by the p-atheists...

 

[zooterkin]

If asked directly if gods exist, there is no room for fence sitting any more - unless you wish to Bob the questioner (but then you are just being evasive).

Do gods exist?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, this latter is my point. I think some people recoil from the idea that a statement implies a belief because they presume it is attempting to sneak religious faith through the back door.

And it often is. But belief can be many things. I believe it will rain tomorrow, because the forecast says so, and my barometer says so, but I don't belive in gods because I fail to see any reason to do so.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

If asked directly if gods exist, there is no room for fence sitting any more - unless you wish to Bob the questioner (but then you are just being evasive).

And yet your ENTIRE shtick, the entire up and down of your entire personality in these threads is being the guy who pitches a hissy fit if someone says 'There is no god" without burying it under wishy-washy ass covering modifiers.

 

[Steve]

And yet your ENTIRE shtick, the entire up and down of your entire personality in these threads is being the guy who pitches a hissy fit if someone says 'There is no god" without burying it under wishy-washy ass covering modifiers.

Good summary.