Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Tassman]

Skepticism coupled with anti theist/'spiritual' sentiments is the reaction to these things.
Atheism is not a reaction to anything. It is a lack of belief in god ideas.

“Atheism” is a reaction to god ideas, certainly, because “god ideas” are so prevalent in our culture. We don’t need a special word to designate a “lack of belief” in other paranormal nonsense like unicorns, leprechauns or pyramid power.

 

[Navigator]

That does not mean it does not exist.

Of course. Atheism exists. It is meaningless

 

[Navigator]

That clarifies nothing, ...

Yes it does. It clarifies that atheism in itself is meaningless. It clarifies that those who call themselves atheists are not expected to agree with each other on how to express atheism.

 

[Navigator]

“Atheism” is a reaction to god ideas, certainly, because “god ideas” are so prevalent in our culture. We don’t need a special word to designate a “lack of belief” in other paranormal nonsense like unicorns, leprechauns or pyramid power.

I would perhaps call that skepticism. Atheism is more concerned with theist ideas, of which unicorns, leprechauns are not really here nor there or perhaps more to the point, are irrelevant to theists in relation to god ideas.

However, you are free to express your atheism as you will, as it is irrelevant to me how you choose to do so. There is 'no true atheism'.

 

[Tassman]

I would perhaps call that skepticism. Atheism is more concerned with theist ideas, of which unicorns, leprechauns are not really here nor there or perhaps more to the point, are irrelevant to theists in relation to god ideas.

Certainly! Skepticism at the notion of gods existing; a notion referred to by many as 'atheism'.

However, you are free to express your atheism as you will, as it is irrelevant to me how you choose to do so. There is 'no true atheism'.

So you don’t know what I mean when I say “I’m an atheist”, is that what you’re saying?

 

[Aridas]

Yes it does. It clarifies that atheism in itself is meaningless. It clarifies that those who call themselves atheists are not expected to agree with each other on how to express atheism.

...Or, more accurately, if I'm guessing at your vagueness correctly, it's not meaningless, but it does not include imperatives to act in any particular way. If that's what you actually are saying, I will agree with you that it lacks imperatives to act in any particular manner (I did, after all, point that out myself, too, on multiple occasions), even if I will continue to object to you trying to leave the statement at "atheism is meaningless," because that does not even remotely accurately portray the concepts that you would be invoking. Either way, if my interpretation here is correct, no, you linking to that post did not and would not clarify anything. The only thing that could be validly be considered clarifying would be your last sentence in the quoted.

 

[Aridas]

“Atheism” is a reaction to god ideas, certainly, because “god ideas” are so prevalent in our culture. We don’t need a special word to designate a “lack of belief” in other paranormal nonsense like unicorns, leprechauns or pyramid power.

I would perhaps call that skepticism. Atheism is more concerned with theist ideas, of which unicorns, leprechauns are not really here nor there or perhaps more to the point, are irrelevant to theists in relation to god ideas.

However, you are free to express your atheism as you will, as it is irrelevant to me how you choose to do so. There is 'no true atheism'.

More specifically, atheist as a word was created to describe those odd people who lacked belief in any gods during a time when it was frequently assumed that believing in god(s) was innate.

As for the use of the comment of "There is 'no true atheism,'" that rather suggests that there's a failure to understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods. That would be what validly counts as 'true atheism,' whatever expression or lack thereof might be the case. What Navigator was doing before that raised that issue was trying to add irrelevant criteria to atheism for determining who counts as an atheist without any valid justification for doing so. In short, Navigator was saying that people who acted in a manner that was disliked were "no true atheists," if he also counted as an atheist.

 

[Navigator]

...Or, more accurately, if I'm guessing at your vagueness correctly, it's not meaningless, but it does not include imperatives to act in any particular way. If that's what you actually are saying, I will agree with you that it lacks imperatives to act in any particular manner (I did, after all, point that out myself, too), even if I will continue to object to you trying to leave the statement at "atheism is meaningless," because that does not even remotely accurately portray the concepts that you would be invoking. Either way, if my interpretation here is correct, no, you linking to that post did not and would not clarify anything. The only thing that could be validly be called considered clarifying would be your last sentence in the quoted.

On the contrary, from my perspective.

I have been trying to ascertain exactly what atheism is and whether I am even comfortable calling myself one, as you well know - for a while now.

Now I understand. Calling myself an atheist is meaningless. Anyone calling themselves an atheist is meaningless.

How anyone expresses atheism is irrelevant to me and how I express atheism is irrelevant to them, or more specifically, if they have issue it is irrelevant...their issue is meaningless.

There is no such expression as a true atheists or true atheism.

 

[Navigator]

So you don’t know what I mean when I say “I’m an atheist”, is that what you’re saying?

Yes. It is meaningless. And how you express your atheism is simply the way you choose to. You may find meaning in how you understand atheism and from that how you feel is the best way for you to express it. It is irrelevant to me. It does not 'show me' what 'a true atheist' is, or how 'true atheism' has to be expressed.

There is no true atheism.

 

[tsig]

Yes. It is meaningless. And how you express your atheism is simply the way you choose to. You may find meaning in how you understand atheism and from that how you feel is the best way for you to express it. It is irrelevant to me. It does not 'show me' what 'a true atheist' is, or how 'true atheism' has to be expressed.

There is no true atheism.

I don't exist? This is going to be a shock to my wife.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes. It is meaningless. And how you express your atheism is simply the way you choose to. You may find meaning in how you understand atheism and from that how you feel is the best way for you to express it. It is irrelevant to me. It does not 'show me' what 'a true atheist' is, or how 'true atheism' has to be expressed.

There is no true atheism.

So what is truth?

 

[Aridas]

On the contrary, from my perspective.

I have been trying to ascertain exactly what atheism is and whether I am even comfortable calling myself one, as you well know - for a while now.

Now I understand. Calling myself an atheist is meaningless. Anyone calling themselves an atheist is meaningless.

How anyone expresses atheism is irrelevant to me and how I express atheism is irrelevant to them, or more specifically, if they have issue it is irrelevant...their issue is meaningless.

There is no such expression as a true atheists or true atheism.

Meaningless with regards to behavior and expression, yes, given that it all it's identifying is a state with regards to a specific belief, specifically, not holding that particular belief. That's different from simply being meaningless. It's quite meaningful, in the extremely limited area where it is relevant.

I don't exist? This is going to be a shock to my wife.

That wasn't what was said. Not even remotely, really.

 

[tsig]

Meaningless with regards to behavior and expression, yes, given that it all it's identifying is a state with regards to a specific belief, specifically, not holding that particular belief. That's different from simply being meaningless. It's quite meaningful, in the extremely limited area where it is relevant.



That wasn't what was said. Not even remotely, really.

Added a to help you out.

 

[Navigator]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods. That would be what validly counts as 'true atheism,' whatever expression or lack thereof might be the case. What Navigator was doing before that raised that issue was trying to add irrelevant criteria to atheism for determining who counts as an atheist without any valid justification for doing so. In short, Navigator was saying that people who acted in a manner that was disliked were "no true atheists," if he also counted as an atheist.

This is correct. I am particular about whom I keep company with but understand there are individuals on this board who I appreciate more than others, not because they agree with me or even interact with me for that matter, but because they express their atheism in a way which I find appealing and genuine.

On the other hand, their are those who express their atheism in ways which I find...to be kind...'immature'. Interacting with invisible personalities on the internet is a tricky business. Interacting with people face to face is far more productive. There are personalities on the internet who express themselves in ways which they would not so easily get away with in face to face interactions, hiding as they can behind avatars and pretend names...quite faceless. I have no such acquaintances in my non-cyber world, nor would I wish for them. Of course they exist, but they are not friends of mine.

In cyberland, well...it is different. People can and do use the opportunity to act out.

On this board, or perhaps more localized in this forum there seems to be a dominant type of expression attributed to atheism which I find distasteful, unproductive, scornful, condescending, full of its own importance and there have been times when I have thought to myself "if this is atheism I am better off among Christians" which is I know, no greatly better option, but the point being it shouldn't even have to be an option to think about, even in a none serious way.

So now I understand more clearly. It isn't even about what we each self identify with 'being' and broadcast to anyone who would bother to listen. It is about how we each are. It is not about theists and atheists, theism and atheism.
Those things are truly meaningless.

 

[Navigator]

So what is truth?

That is a good question. Is there a truthful answer?

 

[Navigator]

It's quite meaningful, in the extremely limited area where it is relevant.

And what 'area' is that Aridas?

 

[devnull]

This is correct. I am particular about whom I keep company with but understand there are individuals on this board who I appreciate more than others, not because they agree with me or even interact with me for that matter, but because they express their atheism in a way which I find appealing and genuine.

Nobody cares. You're waaaay off topic.

On the other hand, their are those who express their atheism in ways which I find...to be kind...'immature'. Interacting with invisible personalities on the internet is a tricky business. Interacting with people face to face is far more productive. There are personalities on the internet who express themselves in ways which they would not so easily get away with in face to face interactions, hiding as they can behind avatars and pretend names...quite faceless. I have no such acquaintances in my non-cyber world, nor would I wish for them. Of course they exist, but they are not friends of mine.

Nobody cares.

In cyberland, well...it is different. People can and do use the opportunity to act out.

Nobody cares.

On this board, or perhaps more localized in this forum there seems to be a dominant type of expression attributed to atheism which I find distasteful, unproductive, scornful, condescending, full of its own importance and there have been times when I have thought to myself "if this is atheism I am better off among Christians" which is I know, no greatly better option, but the point being it shouldn't even have to be an option to think about, even in a none serious way.

Nobody cares.

So now I understand more clearly. It isn't even about what we each self identify with 'being' and broadcast to anyone who would bother to listen. It is about how we each are. It is not about theists and atheists, theism and atheism.
Those things are truly meaningless.

Theyre not meaningless, you're just being obtuse. Theyre not meaningless because people's beliefs inform their actions.

Also, nobody cares.

 

[Aridas]

And what 'area' is that Aridas?

Identifying a person as not having belief in any gods.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That is a good question. Is there a truthful answer?

Now you evade. You made a positive claim using truth, so please explain what truth is?

 

[tsig]

This is correct. I am particular about whom I keep company with but understand there are individuals on this board who I appreciate more than others, not because they agree with me or even interact with me for that matter, but because they express their atheism in a way which I find appealing and genuine.

On the other hand, their are those who express their atheism in ways which I find...to be kind...'immature'. Interacting with invisible personalities on the internet is a tricky business. Interacting with people face to face is far more productive. There are personalities on the internet who express themselves in ways which they would not so easily get away with in face to face interactions, hiding as they can behind avatars and pretend names...quite faceless. I have no such acquaintances in my non-cyber world, nor would I wish for them. Of course they exist, but they are not friends of mine.

In cyberland, well...it is different. People can and do use the opportunity to act out.

On this board, or perhaps more localized in this forum there seems to be a dominant type of expression attributed to atheism which I find distasteful, unproductive, scornful, condescending, full of its own importance and there have been times when I have thought to myself "if this is atheism I am better off among Christians" which is I know, no greatly better option, but the point being it shouldn't even have to be an option to think about, even in a none serious way.

So now I understand more clearly. It isn't even about what we each self identify with 'being' and broadcast to anyone who would bother to listen. It is about how we each are. It is not about theists and atheists, theism and atheism.
Those things are truly meaningless.

Aren't you afraid of getting Atheist Cooties by posting here?