Christianity

[Lacewing]

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity or deities,

Nope.

Rocks, trees and chimpanzees "lack belief." They are not "Atheists."

'Someone' refers to people.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it's neatest to switch out "belief" for something more generic, so that the definition becomes: "The epistemic conviction that God does not exist".

I think that's fine.

But then, we can ask what the "epistemic conviction" is based upon...is it evidentiary in some way, or merely a wish?

Then, we can define "agnosticism" similarly: "The epistemic conviction that God might or might not exist; of uncertainty in God's existence; of the impossibility of knowing either way".

There'd be only one problem with this one. That is, that one would have to ask if the "impossibility" ascribed was evidentiary or merely speculative.

Either way, we come to the same problem: is Atheism a belief based-on-sufficient-evidence, or merely a gratuitious refusal to believe in a God or gods?

[Immanuel Can]

It is also sometimes defined as lacking belief in a god or gods.

No, that one includes rocks and trees as "Atheists." That's not plausible.

So a person who lacks belief in God isn't an atheist?

He's an agnostic. The Greek is "a-" (the particle of negation) plus "gnosis" (meaning "knowledge"). One who "lacks belief" or "does not know" is an agnostic.

"A-theist," likewise, is "a-" plus "theos," (the word for "god"). So it means, "no-gods." It's a person who believes there are no gods.

[Immanuel Can]

IC's unscrupulous distortion of the word, "atheist", for his own dishonourable purpose.

My definition is "One who says God does not exist." What's "distorted" about that definition of Atheist? It seems perfectly fair to me.

Oh, c'mon I.C. All across this forum you've described/defined atheists and atheism with so many despicable characteristics. That's the distortion.

Let's see you quote these "despicable characteristics." You'll find that no such thing has happened.

But I am always very amused when people try to invent things they wish I had said. Embarassingly transparent, that.

[Harry Baird]

I think it's neatest to switch out "belief" for something more generic, so that the definition becomes: "The epistemic conviction that God does not exist".

I think that's fine.

But then, we can ask what the "epistemic conviction" is based upon...is it evidentiary in some way, or merely a wish?

I think that at least some atheists would say it's evidentiary, given, for example, their conviction in the force of the problem of evil.

Personally, I take the problem of evil seriously enough that I've adopted dualism over monotheism.

Then, we can define "agnosticism" similarly: "The epistemic conviction that God might or might not exist; of uncertainty in God's existence; of the impossibility of knowing either way".

There'd be only one problem with this one. That is, that one would have to ask if the "impossibility" ascribed was evidentiary or merely speculative.

That would be a useful question to ask. Some agnostics omit that final part of the definition, even though strictly speaking it was part of the original coining of the term. I know that I omitted it during the period during which I counted myself as agnostic.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it's neatest to switch out "belief" for something more generic, so that the definition becomes: "The epistemic conviction that God does not exist".

I think that's fine.

But then, we can ask what the "epistemic conviction" is based upon...is it evidentiary in some way, or merely a wish?

I think that at least some atheists would say it's evidentiary, given, for example, their conviction in the force of the problem of evil.

How would the argument for that go?

"I don't understand why things happen, therefore there's no God"? That doesn't seem a very compelling argument. I would hope they mean something a whole lot better than that.

Then, we can define "agnosticism" similarly: "The epistemic conviction that God might or might not exist; of uncertainty in God's existence; of the impossibility of knowing either way".

There'd be only one problem with this one. That is, that one would have to ask if the "impossibility" ascribed was evidentiary or merely speculative.

That would be a useful question to ask. Some agnostics omit that final part of the definition, even though strictly speaking it was part of the original coining of the term. I know that I omitted it during the period during which I counted myself as agnostic.

Well, we probably agree on that, then, Harry. I don't see that it makes a very good addition. It would require the agnostic to have evidence of "impossibility," and that does seem a bridge too far. I think it's unnecessary, and we probably don't have to attribute it to them at all.

[BigMike]

I think that's fine.

But then, we can ask what the "epistemic conviction" is based upon...is it evidentiary in some way, or merely a wish?

I think that at least some atheists would say it's evidentiary, given, for example, their conviction in the force of the problem of evil.

How would the argument for that go?

In my opinion, the argument might go something like this:

Some atheists might consider the problem of evil as evidence against the existence of God. The problem of evil refers to the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and suffering in the world, and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Many atheists argue that the existence of evil and suffering is incompatible with the existence of such a God, and therefore, the lack of evidence for God's existence is evidence against it.

[Immanuel Can]

In my opinion, the argument might go something like this:

Some atheists might consider the problem of evil as evidence against the existence of God. The problem of evil refers to the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and suffering in the world, and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.

That's a pretty bad argument, really. It requires us to take for granted belief in a whole lot of problematic propositions.

One would be that God is the only possible real "agent" in the world, the only one whose doings count for anything, and hence we cannot blame humans for anything. That seems shaky, to say the least. Or that this world is in harmonious relationship to the Creator, as it stands. And empirically, that sure doesn't look likely. Or that an "all-powerful" God wouldn't be capable of having sufficient reason to permit suffering, and an "all-knowing one" wouldn't be able to "know" why evil and suffering are allowed. That seems totally self-contradictory. Then we'd have to accept that "apparent," as you put it, means "real." And we surely don't believe that, do we?

So while I recognize that it's probably the best argument Atheism could offer, it's not a terribly good one, for all that.

[BigMike]

In my opinion, the argument might go something like this:

Some atheists might consider the problem of evil as evidence against the existence of God. The problem of evil refers to the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and suffering in the world, and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.

That's a pretty bad argument, really. It requires us to take for granted belief in a whole lot of problematic propositions.

It is, however, an argument, as you requested. Mind you, it's not an argument that I would use, even though I am an atheist.

[Immanuel Can]

In my opinion, the argument might go something like this:

Some atheists might consider the problem of evil as evidence against the existence of God. The problem of evil refers to the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and suffering in the world, and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.

That's a pretty bad argument, really. It requires us to take for granted belief in a whole lot of problematic propositions.

It is, however, an argument, as you requested. Mind you, it's not an argument that I would use, even though I am an atheist.

Well, what would you use, instead?

[BigMike]

That's a pretty bad argument, really. It requires us to take for granted belief in a whole lot of problematic propositions.

It is, however, an argument, as you requested. Mind you, it's not an argument that I would use, even though I am an atheist.

Well, what would you use, instead?

Carl Sagan is credited with saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is individuals like you who make absurd claims about a god. You are responsible for providing evidence, pal.

[Lacewing]

Let's see you quote these "despicable characteristics."

You already know what they are and they've been witnessed by many people here, as evidenced by the reputation you've earned and the consistency of the responses you get. No, I'm not going to wade through your posts to repeat your toxic distortions for this little dance that you do. Like Atto, even when things are shown to you (per your request), you distort further or skip away in denial... so it's a waste of effort.

Embarassingly transparent, that.

Repeating these words back to me because I've said them to you about your own behavior is, again, transparent.

[Immanuel Can]

It is, however, an argument, as you requested. Mind you, it's not an argument that I would use, even though I am an atheist.

Well, what would you use, instead?

Carl Sagan is credited with saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Yeah. He was no philosopher, for sure. He thought that "extraordinary" was an easy-to-determine property.

But "extraordinary" is arbitrary. Most human beings, thoughout most of human history, in all cultures and places, independent of one another, have thought it was most plausible to think there's a God or gods. Even today, it's about 92% of the population who hold it likely, and 4% agnostics, who still say it's possible, and about 4% who are actual Atheists. (CIA Factbook) So what's "extraordinary"? Atheism. By a vast margin, it's the historical and statistical irregularity. Most people have found, and still find, it's hard to believe.

However, more importantly, when we're talking about Atheism, the only claim being made is the Atheist claim, "There is no God." And if the Atheist is happy to say, "It's just a wish of mine," then there's no problem; he can (dis)believe whatever he wants. But Atheists are not happy being exposed as mere "wishers." They prefer to say their belief is "rational." And if it is, it needs evidence. Sagan's axiom would mean they need very, very extraordinary evidence indeed. And we know what it would be: and we can be quite certain that they don't have it.

But it's worse then that, if, as you said earlier, Atheists want to have an opinion about what OTHER people believe, not just about what they, themselves get to believe. For if they have an opinion about what others OUGHT to believe, then they owe proof for sure. And if they can't supply it, then on what basis are they insisting their (dis)belief is either evidentiary or relevant to other people? That's really going to ruin their "mal-evangelism" plans.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's see you quote these "despicable characteristics."

You already know what they are...

Caught! You were firing blanks.

You're so obvious.

[Harbal]

No, that one includes rocks and trees as "Atheists." That's not plausible.

So a person who lacks belief in God isn't an atheist?

He's an agnostic. The Greek is "a-" (the particle of negation) plus "gnosis" (meaning "knowledge"). One who "lacks belief" or "does not know" is an agnostic.

"A-theist," likewise, is "a-" plus "theos," (the word for "god"). So it means, "no-gods." It's a person who believes there are no gods.

Okay, as a special favour to you, I am prepared to go the extra mile and unequivocally declare that there is no God, just so I fit neatly into your definition of "atheist".