“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.” (John 6:44)
There it is, boys and girls.
You hear God’s voice, you’ll come to Jesus.
You don’t hear God’s voice, you’ll post memes like this:
This is pre-school biblical scholarship.
Which isn’t surprising when atheists proudly post stuff like this:
I’m not kidding.
That was posted by an atheist.
…the Supreme Council of atheists aren’t potty trained.
He was making the point that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.
He WASN’T saying atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Atheism is NOT the belief that there is no God.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
It is crucial that we understand this distinction!
Only theists believe things about God.
Atheism makes no claims.
It makes no statements of truth.
Don’t even SUGGEST that lack of belief in God is the same as believing there is no God.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the atheist worldview.
SORRY! Atheism isn’t a worldview!
It’s not a philosophy, a faith or a belief.
It’s a LACK of belief.
To put it simply, atheism is:
” “
And that’s it.
You can follow this link and read dozens of statements on the subject of God from atheists insisting that atheism makes no statements on the subject of God.
Or you can pick up this book at Amazon instead.
I’m not saying you should get the book.
I’m saying I lack belief that you should follow the link instead of getting the book.
Understand?
— UPDATE —
The comment section below now contains dozens of emphatic statements that atheism is not a belief. This is a tremendous time saver! You don’t even need to leave this page to verify that I have not exaggerated the incoherence of atheism.
I’ve asked this question several times and have yet to receive a reply. Apparently, it’s not a question that my faithless friends can easily answer. The question is:
How do you [an atheist] respond to the statements, “Christianity is not a belief. It is merely a lack of belief in atheism”?
91 Responses
Your post title best explains the core of Atheism beliefs.
If you compare your title with an Atheist’s beliefs, the result is the same mistake of constructing an sentence error which contains two negatives.
Regards and goodwill blogging. (
Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
Fall has just begun. This morning I opened the window and the cool, fresh air rushed in. That was still refreshing, but as time passes and the winter chill arrives that window will stay closed, waiting for the warmth of Spring.
Tomorrow evening we will have the first presidential debate between the Democratic Party’s and the Republican Party’s nominees. Various campaigns for the presidency began in earnest in the Spring. In the heat of summer most died, but a few of the campaigns took root and matured. We will harvest one winner in Fall. In the dead of Winter, our new president will assume the mantle of power. In Winter? Why Winter? Is it then we consider our harvest of joys and regrets? Is it then we get ready for Spring?
Spring is when life begins. It is the beginning that thrills us. All is new! There is only a baby. Who knows how that baby will grow? We can only do our best to nurture our child, and yet there is a contrary view. There is the Atheist who says the baby is already perfected. Nurturing that babe will just ruin a perfect void.
Does not Summer follow Spring? If we have not grown in the Summer, if we have not tried our self in the Fall, where is the harvest that will get us through the Winter? Why would our Lord give a slothful soul the strength to prepare for Spring in eternity?
Wow, this thread got really good. Hat’s off to you guys. I was thoroughly entertained.
It’s true, Zande. You’re out of touch. Neither Christians nor the upcoming generations of ATHEISTS are very impressed with your “sketches.” (I refer to the younger generation because I recognize you still have great thinkers like Club and Carmen, who are ladies of a certain age, hanging on your every word.) But the best philosophers are starting to recognize that strict naturalism and humanism lead to nihilism. Which means we’ve reached a point in human evolution where we’ve discovered life is meaningless (period, the end) OR those theories are wrong.
Most people are looking for a good alternate theory; so they could NOT care less what a self-styled UN-Theorist has to say. Your lack-of-belief just doesn’t affect…well…anything. It’s useless.
I recommend that you reread the post about why Atheists should just be monks, silently observing the discussions between those who have things to say, instead of jumping in with your “void.” If you’re not going to attempt explaining why I’m here, then go away. If you can’t give me a good reason why I should continue living this life–and your only plan is to keep contradicting Christians on the internet until everyone dies–then surely you understand why most people tune out whenever they see JB writing about Atheists AGAIN. Because, although the supposedly non-religious folks are OBSESSED with the topic of Christianity (because their non-belief requires studying those who believe, in order to be relevant), those who have already found God just don’t feel like having grammar class–again–with some nobody online, who reserves the unrestricted right to demand more “evidence”–always the judge and never the defendant.
OR, on the other hand, you could admit the obvious: that all of reality was built for a purpose. And then we can all use our brain power for something that isn’t ultimately futile.
Hi Josh. Your comment deserves an explanation, I think. Explanations with good content tend to be long so please forgive me and just dive in.
I took John’s claim quite seriously about atheism being a worldview and asked him to fill in the content he insists is there. After all, I’m an atheist and I don’t know anything about this content. I must have missed that meeting, in the same way I missed the BBQ class on how to roast babies. So, we would all know he has the ‘right’ content if, by removing it, atheism collapsed. So what is that content? John won;t tell us because he knows perfectly well that anything he can offer doesn’t have anything to do with atheism! In spite of his assurances that the content is really, really, really there, he’s refused to do what should be a very simple declaration. So what’s a good ol’ boy funny man religious apologist to do? Well, distort the truth, of course and blame atheists for it trying to use humour as a shield.
Now, why would he utterly fail in this simple declaration, hmm? It should be straight forward if true. Alas…
So ask yourself the right question: what’s .really going on here? Why does John feel this overwhelming need to classify atheism not as a lack of belief in gods or a god but as a personal belief in the rejection of his god? There’s the rub.
Atheism is not a personal refusal targeted at Jesus. It’s not targeted at Yahweh. It’s not targeted at Allah. It’s not targeted at any specific god or group of gods. It’s a statement of having NO belief in any or all of these gods. It is a default position all of us share in the face of extraordinary claims of any kind. We need to be convinced. We need to see compelling evidence. We are open to drawing a different conclusion should we have compelling reasons to do so.
Sometimes extraordinary claims are in fact the case and once presented with these assembled compelling reasons we really do grant confidence that the claim is correct, that it really does accurately describe reality. Big deal. Our conclusions change. Most of us don’t hold fast to denying the validity of a claim – even an extraordinary claim – because we have invested the denial with a certainty we refuse to yield (well, some people do over issues like human caused climate change, the efficacy and safety of inoculations, the special exemption from regulation by the ‘natural’ supplement industry, and so on). That’s what describes a faith-based belief – belief in the absence of compelling reasons. A faith-based belief requires that faith component because the claim cannot stand on its own merit; an evidence-adduced belief can and does stand on its own merit… regardless of what we may otherwise believe. For example, the claim that Jews spent 40 years in exile wandering the desert versus water boiling at 100 C at sea level. The first has no compelling evidence in its favour and so to believe it to be true is a faith-based belief. The boiling temperature of water can be demonstrated by anyone anywhere and so it is an evidence-adduced belief. These are NOT equivalent beliefs just because we throw in the term ‘believe’.
Now, we can twist the term ‘believe’ to underhanded use like John tries to do because it contains two meanings. There is belief of a religious kind that relies on faith – an imported assumption that something is true without compelling evidence to back it up – and belief as a substitute and synonym for a degree of confidence. Two meanings – what is called a premise that is an imported assumption for the veracity of a claim, and a conclusion derived from compelling evidence for it. Both meanings, one word ‘believe’. John is switch hitting here and using one sense in place of the other whenever it’s convenient. This is dishonest.
Because I have no confidence in John’s very poor evidence for his extraordinary claims in support of his god being real, I can conclude that his claims deserve no confidence that his god is real. I can safely say I believe his god is not real, meaning my confidence is based on a lack of compelling evidence is that his god is not real. That’s my personal opinion. Now, here’s the important part: any belief I have that John’s god is not real in this sense IS NOT BASED ON MY ATHEISM. I do not go into the discussion already assuming as John wishes to falsely portray with the premise, with an a priori belief – a faith-based belief, an imported belief, that his god is not real; I consider his evidence and CONCLUDE I think his faith-based belief is in error. That does not describe ATHEISM, which a term to indicate a lack of belief.
Why does this matter?
John is attempting to recast and subvert my conclusion as if it’s were an equivalent premise by telling people like you that I have gone into this discussion assuming ON FAITH that there is no god or gods and that no amount of evidence will shake what he presumes to suggest is my atheistic faith.
That’s a gross and intentional distortion of what is the case. The term ‘a’-theism is self explanatory in the same way ‘a’-gnostic is self explanatory. A-theism does not contain any set or preordained beliefs any more than a-gnosticism contains any set of preordained knowledge. Both terms indicate a LACK of an assumed belief premise. What John is doing is not respecting the language but torturing it in this one case to serve his ends.. It’s like trying to argue that an agnostic possesses a set of knowledge claims. It’s simply not true.
That’s why I and others have repeatedly asked John to produce the evidence for this set of beliefs he continues to insist informs atheism, informs an atheistic worldview. His failure to do so matters in assessing the merit of his argument. He has not produced any compelling evidence for his claim. He’s got … nothing! All he has is the willingness of other religious believers to go along with his charade that atheists are believers of a different religion on the basis of assuming that atheism contains an ideology, a set of nefarious principles, a conspiracy against those religious folk who believe in Jesus!
He seems to want to portray Christianity itself as the victim of another kind of jack-booted religious belief called ‘atheism’, and he’ll torture the language to try to make it seem reasonable while he steadfastly refuses to produce any compelling evidence for his claim. It’s not reasonable. It’s a false presentation of what atheism means – simply a lack of belief in gods or a god – which, oh by the way smears atheists with a broad stroke of evidence-free assertion. This is malicious. What John and other malicious apologists try to do is create a false equivalency by abusing the term ‘belief’. It’s a faith-based imposition John is trying to get away with (atheism is a faith, you see, no really, it is… it’s actually a worldview full of malicious content aimed at religious believers but, hey, we’re all believers of different kinds under the skin, atheist and theist… look how inclusive I’m being versus those nasty and militant atheists who think they’re <i.different!). He is being intentionally dishonest and needs to be called on it.
Atheism is not a presumptive belief that there is no god but is a term indicate a lack of belief there is. That difference matters. The onus is on believers to produce a compelling evidence-adduced case why their religious belief is a reasonable conclusion if they want their religious beliefs to be treated on merit with respect for what is the case rather than a faith-based claim that then demands privilege.
I hope that answers your questions, Josh.
I do wish John would finally just tell us what this “content” is…
I really, really, really want to know…
How is it John B made the atheist meeting to receive this content but we missed it? Go figure…
“I believe there is no God” – atheism’s core content.
Please see my response to JZ.
Wrong, again.
Do remember, John, we’re not starting with YOUR conclusion. You’re just not that special, sorry.
What is is, is: Ï reject the positive claims made by the theist for lack of evidence.”
Again, no contenbt there.
So PLEASE John, tell us what this “content”is.
It’s your thesis so back it up…
No, John, in that context that’s a personal statement of belief. My argument is that it has nothing to do with atheism. You link the two as causal, so please show us how atheism is required for this belief.
Okay. Believe me, I understand what you’re saying! You’ve said it many times and despite your suggestions to the contrary, I’m not a total idiot.
My ENTIRE point is: if atheism is a void, it isn’t REQUIRED for ANY belief. The void has no impact on any aspect of conscious thought. And if atheism is not a factor in formulating statements of belief then what purpose does the label serve? What does atheism do for you?
Right. That’s why many people – religious believers and non believers – point out why it’s such a silly term… because it is content free. The only use for it is to differentiate non theists from theists. I’m sure if the world were filled with people privileging those who believed, say, in UFOs, we would undoubtedly use another word – like a-UFOist – to differentiate. That’s all it means – way to differentiate.
Thank you.
Differentiating requires at least two distinct groups. When we’re differentiating between “Them” and “Not Them” the definition (or truth claim) is implied whether either group explicitly states it or not. When you say, “I am one of Them” you are ALSO saying “I am not one of Not Them”.
As you pointed out, ‘lack of belief’ describes nothing. It is void. Atheism only takes on meaning when it is related to the definition of Theism.
We are not Them (theists). We are Not Them (atheists).
There is no way to coherently identify as ‘Not Them’ without positively affirming the defining content of ‘Them’. This is what keeps atheism from being ‘a void’. The core content of Atheism is that it IS NOT theism.
Does that make sense?
I agree regarding the ‘a’ means ‘opposite to’, ‘not’; ‘without’, ‘lacking’. So when we say ‘atheism’ the ‘a’ has no content but relies on what follows to mean its opposite, without, lacking, not. That’s why atheism other than in strict relationship to theism contains nothing else. No principles. No fundamentals. No core at all… except as opposite to, not, without, lacking theism. That’s why you attempt to make atheism mean anything else, a worldview, for example, is entirely misguided. It’s not true.
Yet this is a standard trope that atheism is loaded – with secularism, with humanism, with selfishness, with immorality, with sin! Just look at how mrsmcmommy has extended her understanding of what non belief in gods or a god means to be a form of nihilism! And much, much more!
Where is all this saddling of negative characteristics on to the shoulders of atheism coming from? Seriously. Where?
From theists!
It does not come from reality. It is not adduced from reality. We not only don’t have great swaths of criminals sharing non belief in gods or a god running amok without reason or purpose in their lives, but we actually have the opposite… a differentiated group massively underrepresented in prison, massively underrepresented in all kinds of categories of social dysfunction.
How can this be if what mrsmcmommy says is true? Is there some core of fundamentals and principles non believers adhere to because they are atheists as you argue?
No.
Without belief in gods or a god to infantilize us, we find people tend to be much more autonomous, much more responsible for the consequences of their own actions. These folk by and large tend to be quite responsible not just for themselves but in taking on the care of others. Does that derive from atheism?
No.
It derives from respecting reality, from respecting really good reasons rather than submitting to commands and demands from an divine Overlord for taking responsible action, for exercising honest empathy and real compassion, of doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. (Look no further than Doctors Without Borders)
None of these pro-social results belongs to atheism, either. It derives first from getting rid of superstitious nonsense, getting away from this notion that some god owns us, that we owe fealty and obedience to this fatherly god, this loving dine Dear Leader, getting away from the terrible cruel idea that we are the property of another and must therefore bend the knee to Him, and the resulting and often irrational slavish obedience theists seem all too willing to grant even if it comes from some international criminal cabal called the priestly caste supposedly interpreting this god’s desires. Teaching children to behave well according to this divine template is ludicrous. Scripture is filled with lunatic behaviour based on ludicrous beliefs that speaks for itself as lunacy… when you strip away the faux respect children are taught to grant to religious belief and look at the actual lunatic teachings scripture of all kinds contains.
John Z has used the identical arguments of that Great Christian Apologist William Lane Craig to show that the reasoning he uses in his debates to arrive at ‘evidence’ for his god works just as well to arrive at the worst kind of monstrous god possible, one that no loving parent would ever want his or her children to look to for any kind of guidance about anything. Is this what atheism teaches?
No. This has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with real scholarship involving knowledge about the real world. .
So what?
Well, I wanted to be very clear that atheism is a term relative only to theism and contains no content positive or negative. It’s just a descriptor about a person’s lack of belief in gods or a god. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
It would help John get through life if he just admitted that what he’s actually trying to attack and demean is Humanism, or even Anti-Theism, both of which have a great deal of juicy content.
I agree.
Remember all that stuff about me ‘bringing my a priori bias into atheism’? Remember when I was ‘assuming the conclusion’ and all that?
Would you say, JZ, that you’re doing exactly that when you suggest I’m “actually trying to attack and demean” Humanism and Anti-Theism.
I’m not trying to gain clarity on the atheist position. I’m attacking and demeaning atheism.
Is this a fair point?
Really…
…do you not owe the Humanists or even Anti-Theists the courtesy of letting them speak for themselves? !!
I have always tried to avoid saddling you with extra, unspoken content. I understand the frustration of being lectured about what I must believe by some sanctimonious fundamentalist. I am exceedingly weary of being forced to apologize for the behavior of alleged ‘Believers’.
I often run afoul of the sensibilities of my fellow theists who accuse me of doing to them exactly what they do to you atheists. You made quite a few accusations in the post above that would sidetrack the conversation if I was compelled to take exception to every comment.
But I’m not capable of speaking for the faceless ‘theists’ who have annoyed you…
That’s why I ask so many annoying questions. It’s also why I try to restate the answers to those questions in my own words (which often yields accusations of straw man arguments).
I really do believe that I should treat you the way I want to be treated. That means that I should allow you to speak for yourself about what you believe (or don’t). It also means that I should respect you as a person even when I disagree with your ideas.
There is no point in debating with people who already agree with me. I can’t learn anything from folks who just call me names. Vigorous debate is the ONLY way I can know if my ideology is sound.
I already told you, JZ
“I believe there is no God” is atheism’s core content.
Now I’ll give Tildeb the floor to construct a million word response explaining why that simple, unremarkable statement is actually my dishonest hijacking of the English language.
Wrong, again. What you are trying to say is: “I reject the positive claims made by the theist for lack of evidence”
No content there, is there, John?
Guys,
When I care about people, I’m honest with them. And I care about you guys. In my mind, we’ve developed a sort of brotherhood over the past few months. So I’m gonna be bluntly honest.
You’re the only ones who really give a crap about whether or not atheism is a belief. I lack belief that anyone has read the entirety of our comments other than ourselves. Verbose explanations about nuanced semantics are not interesting to 99.99999% of the population. And my blog posts about atheism ALWAYS have the fewest views. Posts about Christianity are MUCH more interesting to the masses.
Most people are utilitarian in their use of the word ‘believe’. People say stuff like, “I don’t believe it’s going to rain” and we let it slide without that person having to identify as an a-precipitationist. Most people understand ‘believe’ to mean, in essence, “This is what I think.”
You’re more than welcome to continue your lengthy diatribes about my sinister distortions of logic and language in order to advance my nefarious schemes but I think you should know that nobody but you gives a shit.
We’re the only one’s who give a crap?
Really?
Is that why YOU keep posting articles about it, making the same mistake over and over?
Project much, John?
“…I lack belief that anyone has read the entirety of our comments other than ourselves.”
I included myself in the irrelevancy group when I used the word ‘ourselves’. Do you need to give me big explanation about how I’m misusing that word?
Keep it up! It’s good for you to dialogue with thinking people like me. This is the first step in getting rid of your antiquated paradigm.
It seems to me, this long winded conversation boils down to an epic battle of semantics. 1. I don’t believe in God. Vs 2. I believe there is no God.
What is the fundamental difference between these two statements? Isn’t a lack of belief in something also disregarding its existence? If, for instance, I don’t believe in Santa Claus*, doesn’t it follow that I also believe he doesn’t exist? Aren’t those mutually inclusive?
*I cannot confirm or deny the existence of Santa Claus.
Hi Josh,
Yes. You are absolutely right. It is no more complicated than that. And while I love a good turn-of-phrase as much as anyone, these are not mere word games our atheist friends are playing.
The point that ‘atheism is not a belief’ is crucial to their philosophical house of cards. Read through the comments (if you can stomach it) and you’ll see phrases like, “[my position is] full of content, John. But my position does not derive from atheism…”
So from the sanctuary of ‘non-belief’, the atheist can hurl rocks at my silly, superstitious ‘belief’ because his entire world view is a ‘lack of belief’. Of course, rational people like yourself (and me) understand that saying, “I don’t believe in God” is a truth claim. But to the atheist, this is nothing but an expression of a negative. They insist that atheism is ‘content free’. A void. Every positive claim they make, such as, “Your iron-age belief harms society” is ‘not derived from atheism’.
I don’t expect them to cop to the semantics. Atheism is a really simple belief. It breaks into pieces almost immediately upon inspection. Word games and faux science is the only way atheists can fill up their blog space.
Don’t believe me? You can head over to my new blog post where (I’ll bet you ten bucks) the atheists will arrive and start insisting that they don’t need God to be good.
** …and shame on you for not blogging more often. You’re not sharing your witty prose with mankind and that, my child, is a sin… **
Josh, having just read the comments under the newest blog post, I believe you owe John ten bucks… 🙂
Perhaps you should look at the time codes. It’s quite easy to PREDICT something after its already happened.
Johns “prediction” was posted at July 21, 2016 at 11:19 am
My comment was posted at July 21, 2016 at 9:48 am
Mmmm, that’s awkward and embarrassing, isn’t it?
TOTALLY embarrassing! Everything I’ve ever believed is a lie!!!!
You’ll notice that JZ has thus far ignored my comment on his time coded comment.
I’m encouraged that maybe he’s learning!
Reading this thread I am left with one conclusion – that JB’s (and others’) ability to conjure up imaginary definitions spring from his ‘source’ – his imaginary god. This comes as no surprise, really. In fact, it’s to be expected. It is rather amusing, however, to read through a debate with common sense, factual information on the one side and delusional, nonsensical posturing on the other.
JB, do give your head a good shake, will you?
It is rather amusing, however, to read through a debate with common sense, factual information on the one side and delusional, nonsensical posturing on the other.
That’s funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Hi Carmen,
Maybe you can target your laser-like rationality on this subject and dispel this nonsensical posturing.
Do you have any idea what this discussion is about?
Obviously, I know what this discussion is about, JB. You have the same types of discussions, time after time, on your site.
They all discuss the same topic – YOU trying to convince others that nonsense is, in fact, TRUE and that your make-believe world with your mythical God is reality. And that anyone who doesn’t believe your hocus-pocus is operating in some sort of parallel universe. It gets tiresome, JB. However, as I’ve suggested, anyone who is convinced that holy spooks are Really. Out. There will go to great lengths to establish a semblance of credibility.
You’re tenacious, I’ll give you that. All it took for me was my eldest saying, “Mum, you don’t really believe all that, do you?” Give it a good think, JB. You’ve been hoodwinked. Do your grandchildren a big favour and don’t perpetuate the delusion. If you must pass along fiction, stick to the Gruffalo – they know he’s imaginary. 🙂
Okay.
I’m going to copy this comment and save it in my Evernote documents. Then, next time you want to participate just put *note* in the comment section and I’ll paste this gem into the dialogue.
Do atheists believe in anything? I find your lack of conclusions (not to mention your faith) disturbing.
John, you state as if true:
Atheism is a belief. No, it’s a lack of belief in gods or a god. That’s what a-theism means.
It’s the belief that there is no God. No, it’s not a belief. It’s a lack of belief in gods or a god. That’s what a-theism means
That’s it. No, you’ve still got it wrong: a lack of belief is not a belief no matter how often you try to make it so.
Period. That is a faith-based argument you’re presenting and infusing it with confidence it does not deserve… not because I say so but because that’s what the linguistic root words mean.
You are altering the term’s meaning. You are making a substitution that is incorrect.. You are trying to change our language so that your faith-based belief about atheism magically changes from a pig of a premise into the lipstick wearing conclusion. That’s why this repeated tactic is dishonest. That you won’t correct your mistake now speaks to your motivation which, if you continue on this fool’s charade, has no respect for what is the case yet tries to demand respect… all in the name of smearing atheists as holding an equivalent faith-based belief. This is a lie, John, an intentional distortion and misrepresentation to serve your deceitful ends only.
Yes. I heard you the first 1000 times you said this.
“Christianity is not a belief. It is a lack of belief in atheism.”
Tell me why this doesn’t work.
Because there’s no ‘a’ before atheism, which is double negative and as nonsensical as the rest of your premise. .
I see your point.
“Christianity is not a belief. It’s a lack of belief in A-Christianity.”
Problem solved.
Can you think of any other situation in which it’s THIS IMPORTANT for a person to attempt running back to the clean-slate (ignorant) position of a baby?
Is there ANY OTHER circumstance where someone tries to un-hear a theory (to avoid having to defend a positive claim)–rather than just saying, “For now, I believe that’s true,” or “For now, believe that’s wrong.” ?
When someone says, “I think the moon-landing was a hoax.” I reply “I don’t think that’s true.” And that’s EXACTLY the same as saying, “I believe the moon-landing actually happened.” Everyone understands this. And it’s not a 60 year process of explaining that rejecting their theory is somehow different from ACCEPTING the opposite one. When you don’t believe something, there’s a necessary alternative belief.
I don’t believe Hillary Clinton would make a good President. (I believe she’ll make a bad one.)
I don’t believe my children will fall asleep quickly. (I believe the process is going to take awhile.)
I don’t believe sexism is a major threat in America. (I believe all the “evidence” feminists use for the Patriarchy have other explanations.)
WHY IS THIS SO HARD?
The jig is up, guys. We know why the new trend in Atheistic Apologetics is to claim there’s nothing to defend at all. It’s because the real atheism is indefensible–so it’s actually easier to spend 1,000,000 words discussing what Atheism “isn’t,” rather than having to answer for all the issues that “non-belief” NECESSARILY results in.
For centuries, anyone who made a definite claim (like “there is no God”) would end up looking like an idiot.
Atheists used to argue that evil and suffering couldn’t coexist with God… and then Christians pointed out that evil/suffering are problems in a supposedly-godless reality, too. (Atheism–loss)
Atheists used to argue that the concept of God is self-contradictory…and then Christians pointed out that “nature created itself” is self-contradictory as well. (Atheism–loss)
Atheists used to argue there’s simply no evidence for God…and then Christians pointed out that literally EVERYTHING a Naturalist uses as “evidence” that God isn’t needed turns out to be evidence that this complexity couldn’t be blind chance. (Atheism–loss)
The “No God” position is a loser every time, and (unfortunately for atheists) it’s STILL a loser when you try and modify the “position” to be a void.
It would be similar to me introducing myself as “Amanda–a Non-Black, Non-Male.” And, then getting annoyed when people asked, “Well, what IS a non-Male?”
I’m just not a male, okay?!?! That’s ALL! And, if you want something more concrete, then I’ll offer this: I’m a being who believes water boils at 212 Fahrenheit.
*braces for impact*
John, a-theism is a negation of the meaning of the term ‘theism’. The OED defines theism as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.” The meaning of the term a-theism therefore means no “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”
Now, here’s where you once again alter the language to suit your a priori assertion that atheists have a different kind of belief, that atheism contains (has the content of) some other ideas and principles and philosophy. When asked to produce this content e so that their removal negates atheism, you have failed at every opportunity but stick by the assertion nevertheless and try to justify it not with relevant evidence to show the content you assert is there but by pretending a lack of content is equivalent to a lack of meaning for the term. I have corrected you several times on this by showing the meaning rests with the rejection of the ‘theism’ part and not the embrace of the ‘a’ part. You continue your word game by trying to equate the ‘a’ part to mean belief in ‘nothing’, that the person claiming a-theism is claiming belief in ‘nothing’. You’ve done this again in the OP here, pretending that belief in no belief is a reasonable basis for your (mis)representing what atheists actually believe and that those who try to correct you are saying something they are not saying, that they believe in nothing.
John has offered you and your readership a compelling reason to doubt the truth value of your theistic beliefs. (Here’s another that allows you to zoom in and out and around to get a grasp of just how many incompatible claims there are about this supposed god you think is real.) A lack of belief in gods or a god is quite reasonable. What isn’t reasonable, John, is to assign to non belief – a default position that must be overcome by specific teachings, John Z has clearly demonstrated – a list of other content.
This is where your dishonesty comes into play. You want atheism to be a belief. You will let nothing – not even what’s true – dissuade you from believing this assertion to be the case. This is the core fault in your reasoning: you assume the conclusion. You will not bother to demonstrate any compelling reasons in favour of your assertion; instead, you simply malign atheists for somehow being dishonest not admitting to your assertion. You seem oblivious the the fact that several atheists have bothered to take the time and make the effort to correct your false assertion and expose why your justifications for it are insufficient to do the job you think they do. And you are making a fundamental linguistic error here, John: even your word games are not your ally when you cannot even grasp why any assertion that depends on non belief to be another kind of belief(eg. a lack of milk to be another kind of milk) cannot by definition be the case. Your assertion fails at turn. Let it go.
When asked to produce this content e so that their removal negates atheism, you have failed at every opportunity…
And I believe he will keep failing to address this question like an adult.
It’s, sadly, beyond him,
You keep asking me to remove content from a concept that contains no content.
I’ll admit, that is beyond me.
Come on, John. It’s YOUR your bloody thesis that atheism has content!
Show me what this content is so that when it’s removed, so too is atheism and stop with the childish and stupid and obtuse obtuse word games meant to avoid the crux of the matter. Put up or shut up, shit or get off the pot, I think is the vernacular if that helps your comprehension difficulties here. Either your thesis has merit and atheism DOES have content as you continue to insist or it does not and you’re just making shit up and pretending it doesn’t stink.
Actually, it was YOUR bloody thesis that atheism is ‘content free’. You’re missing the irony that assigning me that claim is precisely what you’re refusing to do with atheism.
Let’s try this on for size:
“Christianity is not a belief. It is just a lack of belief in atheism. Period. That’s all.”
Naturally, because your premise starts (erronously) with a conclusion… a conclusion which you then (dishonestly) try to impose on others.
“John has offered you and your readership a compelling reason to doubt the truth value of your theistic beliefs.”
…and how did he conjure this compelling reason from the content free void of atheism?
John, Tildeb has asked you, AGAIN, to show the content YOU believe atheism has.
It’s your thesis.
Time to be an adult.
Show us, PLEASE, what this content is….
Here’s the content:
“I believe there is no God.”
Does a baby think “I believe there is no God”?
Of course not.
Try again.
This time, don’t start yith YOUR (baslesless) conclusion…
Okay, I’ll start with YOUR baseless conclusion…
“We view this subject from the baby’s position… NOT the observer making a judgment.”
You want me to believe that you are literally considering this question from a baby’s perspective?
I admire the way you keep pulling yourself off the mat, Rocky.
Do you find some problem in seeing this from the baby’s position?
I guess you do, because you can’t now impose your conclusion on the subject.
Would you find it problematic if I said, “From the baby’s position, God exists.”?
Come on, Rocky, get up again!
What a dishonest thing to say. John Zande didn’t ‘conjure’ anything and he didn’t base anything on his atheism. He simply observed how reality operates in regards to the overwhelming number of theistic versions (all purporting to be the ‘truth’) and pointed out what would be obvious to anyone not beguiled and befuddled by their borrowed faith-based beliefs: your god, just like the hundreds of thousands that preceded it, seems to be a creation of man investing in superstitious nonsense and not an independent ‘thing’ that is real and worthy of trust and confidence. What John has bothered to share is the more reasonable and likely (and tentative) conclusion of what evidence-adduced reasoning produces.
But you don’t use much if any of that thinking in relation to your faith-fueled empirical claims: you make empirical claims about reality favourable to your theism and then refuse to allow reality to arbitrate them. That’s called hypocrisy, John, and a blatant disregard for what is probably the case; instead, you continue to try to vilify anyone who is not a theist and actually dares to exercise clear rational thinking that reveals the inherent weakness and lack of justification about your claims that you assume indicates an virtuous allegiance to some divine causal agency that is real. It doesn’t work. John’s observations are not the problem. His motivation is not the problem. His lack of belief is not the problem. A lack of evidence for your empirical claims is the problem. You refusal to allow reality to arbitrate their likelihood is the problem. This shifting of the blame and trying to paint atheism as a kind of equivalent faith-based belief is the problem. You own them all. So your tactic here indicates you exercising a great deal of credulity in favour of your theistic faith-based beliefs and then trying to defend that investment of confidence not by compelling evidence-adduced beliefs but by disreputable and dishonest means targeting atheists.
“He simply observed how reality operates in regards to the overwhelming number of theistic versions (all purporting to be the ‘truth’) and pointed out what would be obvious to anyone not beguiled and befuddled by their borrowed faith-based beliefs: your god, just like the hundreds of thousands that preceded it, seems to be a creation of man investing in superstitious nonsense and not an independent ‘thing’ that is real and worthy of trust and confidence. What John has bothered to share is the more reasonable and likely (and tentative) conclusion of what evidence-adduced reasoning produces.”
Tildeb, on the heels of that eloquent post, tell me again with a straight face that your position is content free…
My position is NOT content free. Just because YOU equate my atheism with meaning it does not possess does not mean my position is content free. It’s full of content, John. But my position does not derive from atheism. It is not founded upon some undisclosed principles YOU attribute to atheism. It is not based on a starting faith-based position that there is no god. Why you can’t get any of this through your skull and into the mushy parts of your brain is truly astounding.
My position is filled with content. I even derive legitimate conclusions from it. It derives from evidence-adduced reasoning that respects reality, aligns seamlessly with it, and allows me full ownership and responsibility of and for my position and every bit of content it contains.
I hope JZ reads this. He assured me that atheism is ‘content free’. A void.
So what’s with the question “Show me what this content is so that when it’s removed, so too is atheism”…? Forgive me for being so dense, but if your position is not derived from atheism then what is atheism doing for you?
Zande: your point doesn’t acknowledge the defence argument that we are born into this world with a fallen nature at a disconnect with God. I could be born with a natural gift for playing the piano, but that doesn’t mean I’m born with a grand piano strapped to me. I would have to discover the gift, and that would happen once I bumped into a piano someday. Then I would have the choice whether or not I wanted to play, but it would not change the fact I have the talent.
You could also ask him whether Atheism is the same thing as “ignorance.”
After all, children aren’t born with an understanding of history, evolutionary science, or humanist ethics, either. But I’m willing to bet that JZ is in favor of brainwashing the children with those ideas…
Now that would be an interesting question. However since mine was obviously too stupid to condescend to answer, then I’m guessing I won’t get an answer to yours either.
JZ is sounding more and more like Club.
Coincidence? Maaaaaybe…
As a successful Evangelical comedian, I understand the importance of distilling my thoughts down into short statements. Imagine what would happen if I tried to read JZ’s entire post in front of a live audience.
This morning, I’ve been counting up all the successful, aging, self-published, God-denying apologists who (successfully) write “sketches” on something that has no content…
I find it thoroughly fascinating that you actually go out of your way to construct a false narrative… a narrative which satisfies your pantomime worldview, but which holds no bearing on, or relation to, reality itself.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/meet-the-supreme-council%201_zps5oufsk5a.png
The meme is self-explanatory. A-theism is the default position of a human being.
Again: it is the default position.
Read that again and again if it helps.
Theism is new information superimposed over the default: A-theism. No child is born a theist. This is an unignorable fact. Not a solitary person in history has arrived independently at Mithraism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Scientology or Judaism without it first being taught to them. Captain Cook did not find Aborigines swallowing back Christian communion wafers at Botany Bay, Columbus was not confronted by a wall of Arawak asses pointed away from Mecca at sunrise on the beaches of Santa María de la Concepción, and Pedro Álvares Cabral did not uncover tribes of Aimoré Indians auditing their Thetans with Mark Super VII Quantum Electropsychometers.
That is a fixed, unarguable truth, and it is a point worth repeating. If any given mythology were even remotely accurate (the claim made by all) then that cult, its gods, its rituals, behavioural codes and canons should have emerged unsupervised (naturally and entirely unassisted) at least twice on the planet. Its truth would in fact be demonstrable in this supernatural event. Its deity (or deities) would wear a single hat, carry a single name and speak a single language audible to the deaf, coherent to infants, understood by the demented, and intelligible to the senile. Its dramas and narratives would be recognised and repeated by cloistered populations in every corner of the planet, and its edicts would have penetrated all tribal, domestic and international legal code mindless of earthly or socioeconomic borders. If any single religion were true a single and unchangeable objective moral writ would underwrite all human populations, dietary conventions would be unchaste by oceans, and norms of etiquette, civility and protocol would not deviate with geography or era.
No religion has however emerged twice anywhere on the planet, and no single deity has been envisaged by two populations separated by time and geography.
This has never happened, nor should anyone anticipate it ever happening. No indication has been spied in any pursuit, inquiry or process of discovery that might even suggest it ever happening, and it is a point compounded by the fact that no religion has ever successfully resisted the terrestrial stresses which pervade all things and by doing so triumphantly maintained a thriving orderly form against a sea of perpetual change and transformation. Although practiced primarily in just one Indian state (Assam) Ekasarana Dharma is split into four competing theological sects: Brahma sanghati, Purusha sanghati, Nika sanghati and Kala sanghati. Zoroastrianism is first divided into Iranian and Indian schools, then according to secondary migration patterns is further subdivided into Parsees, Gabars, and Iranis, inside of which are theological wings including the Zurvanites, Mazdakites, Khurramites, and Behafaridites. There are seventy-three distinct chapters in Islam starting with the main tributaries of Sunni and Shia down to distant subgroups from the Hanafiyah, who believe their God—the God of Abraham—might have had a beginning, to the unfathomably specific Amriyah’s who reject the legal testimony of anyone whose ancestors took part in the Battle of Camel, Basra, 656 C.E. Judaism is fissured predominantly into nine antagonistic movements, and Christianity has no less than 42,000 competing sects ranging from the liberal anti-Trinitarian churches to the violent right-wing fundamentalism of the Reconstructionists.
If any religion were true it would exhibit no such chain of secession. It would not support or nourish splinter movements, nor yield to external stresses. It would not be susceptible to—or tolerant of—variations in interpretation as no interpretation should be required. Homogeneity would be king, and the simple fact that it is not is proof that all expressions of human-written theism are false.
It is new information superimposed over the default: A-theism.
This is not however to say that belief is somehow “unnatural.” In many ways it is inevitable. We are hardwired (through evolution) to find AGENCY in nature. This is the root of all superstitions. That being said, scatter ten thousand people and give them ten thousand years to develop in seclusion and no two will arrive at the same superstitions, or invent the same religion. We KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE because it has already happened. Or more correctly, has not happened.
If neglected for just one generation the deities and practices of any and all belief systems will simply die off, never to rise again. Granted, a few generations down the line some other formalised belief system would emerge, such a rise appears inevitable, if not guaranteed, but it would not be the same belief. Without constant generation-to-generation maintenance any set of religious beliefs will vanish just as quickly as they were invented, and even with rigorous upkeep they will inevitably morph and bend out of shape with the passage of time… a fact observed repeatedly through the course of human history. If then lost and later rediscovered under the sands, forgotten gods will be dusted off, marvelled at, and then promptly placed in museums of mythology, for no god of antiquity has ever been reborn, and no god ever will, for no god (or the practices developed around it) has demonstrated itself to be true.
Now, with these facts in mind, please take another look at the meme.
I find it thoroughly predictable that you actually go out of your way to reassert that atheism is helpful in any way to explain reality.
Not every baby is afraid to ‘superimpose new information’ over their default position. Some of them learn to tie their shoes, eat with a fork and play the piano.
Read it again and again if necessary.
Yep, there it is again… A functioning example for why there are no successful Conservative/Evangelical comedians.
If you want to actually address the points made, then by all means do so.
And John, “addressing the points made,” does not mean inventing (and speaking to) things not actually there in what was written.
Just so you know… Just so you can remain focused on the ACTUAL subject…
If you want to have your points taken seriously, you’re going to need to actually have one. Your ‘no successful Evangelical comedians’ wasn’t all that great the FIRST time you used it.
It is utter futility to insist that atheism is ‘content free’ and then complain about me not addressing your ‘points’.
And, yep, there it is again…the atheist complaint that you’re being misunderstood when your ludicrous faith has been exposed as folly.
Most adults understand ‘Superimposing new information’ onto the default infant position as a good thing. A more efficient way of describing the process is called, ‘learning’. (Read it again and again if necessary.)
And unlike you, I recognize good comedy when I see it. The Supreme Council of Atheist meme is genius. I wish I had thought of it.
John, repeating things someone else said, then changing a few words for effect, might have been mildly clever (in a fairly mundane way) for Grade Three. It’s not clever, or even vaguely funny, when an adult does it.
It’s pathetic.
So, let’s package your poorly-thought-through position here. What you’re saying is a baby’s state of no belief is, in fact, actually belief. Correct? By not believing anything, they are, in fact, believers, even though they don’t even know what it is they don’t believe.
I see. That’s a thoroughly persuasive position to hold.
Now, I believe Tildeb has asked you a question. Couyld you please answer it like an adult? It would be appreciated.
Right, right. I’m pathetic. I’m not funny. I’m not clever. You’ve already said that.
Let me help you package position since you’re doing such a poor job of thinking through it. A baby’s state of no belief is NOT belief FROM THE BABY’S PERSPECTIVE. That is absurd. Babies don’t believe ANYTHING. The baby’s lack of belief can only be understood by an ADULT. The ADULT believes that the baby lacks belief.
Now, I believe that answers Tildeb’s question.
For the record, I’ve also admitted that I cannot remove content from your content free ideology. Pathetic, huh?
Wrong, again.
We view this subject from the baby’s position… NOT the observer making a judgment. The baby is an A-theist: it has no theistic belief. It is without belief. An adult A-theist is (presuming they’ve been exposed to one or more theistic hypothesis in their lifetime) is merely returning to the natural default position of A-theism.
Give it up, John. You’re not going anywhere with this.
Does the baby know he’s an atheist?
And there it is!
Well done, you finally got it.
A-theist = without belief.
Indeed! You finally admitted it.
A-theist = belief there is no God.
That didn’t hurt so much, did it?
There it is… Pathetic Grade Three humour.
There it is…the white flag.
I accept your surrender.
Exactly. The only way you are going to taste success here is if you declare yourself the winner.
Be sure to polish your trophy.
It’s not necessary to send me a trophy.
It would be nice if you’d just stop with the ad hominem when you can’t formulate a response.
This thread is an excellent example of how religious belief turns an otherwise functional brain to mush.
No matter what is presented to you, no matter how many ways possible, you respond with your faith-based conclusion ‘non belief is a kind of belief ‘ idiocy. No matter how often appeals are made for linguistic clarity, you act as if your faith-based belief pronouncement is somehow more than gibberish parroted by a recording. You claim agreement where none exists. You claim victory where none has been obtained. Atheism is content free because it’s a lack, an absence, of belief in gods or a god. That’s what the ‘a’ MEANS. Your attempt to alter the language, to infuse the ‘a’ with content independent of the following term, to argue that the term ‘atheist’ means what it does not mean is not an agreement, John, not a victory, not a justification for parroting the same nonsense over and over again.
Atheism is not a belief in itself. It CAN’T be, John. That what the ‘a’ part MEANS, you dolt. It contains no belief content relative to the term that immediately follows. An a-unicornist lacks a belief in unicorns. That ‘a’ doesn’t contain anything in itself; it defines a lack of belief in the following term. That’s it. It’s a different claim to say ‘I believe unicorns don’t exist’ but the term a-unicornist doesn’t contain that knowledge claim BECAUSE THE ‘a’ IS SIMPLY A LACK OF BELIEF IDENTIFIER.’
The use of the ‘a’ attachment to a term itself contains no principles. It contains no claim about anything other than a LACK. Again, and again, and again, that what the ‘a’ part MEANS.
I’m not making this up, John. It’s basic linguistics in English. But you want to make a special exemption for a-theism. You want to saddle the ‘a’ with all kinds of crap that serves a purpose YOU want it to serve. Not to serve clarity of language. Not to serve an honest and shared understanding of meaning. Not to serve what is the case. YOU want a special classification. YOU want to vilify a-theists, to malign their character, to impose on people who do not believe as you do in a divine causal agency negative attributes, ironically a mirror image of BELIEF where none exists, where a LACK OF BELIEF is identified and used in the terminology that you want to magically POOF! into a belief similar to the worst batshit crazy fundamentalist claims the most dull of mind religionists can produce.
Sorry, John. You can’t make up your own special exemptions, your own special meanings, just to serve your dishonest, hypocritical faith-based beliefs and expect your targets to roll over and play dead while you heap scorn on them in the form of malignant humour no matter how much applause you may receive from your cohorts.
You keep going back to ‘a lack of milk is a kind of milk’ argument that is so stupid, so asinine, so absurd, that it boggles the mind that you’re not the laughing stock of anyone capable of linguistic understanding and rational thought. Yet you keep at it, and bring it forth again and again and again, as if it means what it doesn’t.
No matter how often you try to subvert linguistics to serve your dishonest purposes, you will fail at convincing anyone that you either seek or offer respect for what’s true. You are sabotaging yourself, and that’s not a victory… no matter how earnest and pious you believe yourself to be.
Attaboy, Rocky! I knew you had some fight left in ya!
I never said a lack of milk is a kind of milk. I said a lack of belief in the existence of milk is the same as belief that there is no milk.
What’s your objection to that, Champ?
What’s my response?
Review time.
“I never said a lack of milk is a kind of milk.” Yeah, you did, many times over, and you’ve done again here, champ. I’ll leave out the irrelevant bits:
“I said a lack of belief … is the same as belief….”
Whoops! Now whose being dishonest?
The ‘irrelevant’ bits you left out are, in fact, completely relevant! Give me a little credit, Tildeb. I see the absurdity in your ‘no milk=milk’ argument. I’ve not responded directly to it precisely because it’s so very, very stupid. I confess, I didn’t expect you to stoop to this!
You’re cheating now. I suspect you would have pounced on my actual statement if you had any reasonable response.
If in ‘reality’ we theists were all as naive as you imagine us to be, you’d be dominating this little sparring match. Alas, wisdom prevails over foolishness.
Now, Champ, atheism is on the mat. Do you have an objection to my ACTUAL thesis “a lack of belief in the existence of milk is the same as belief that there is no milk”
…or is this fight over?
Again, John, a lack of belief is not synonymous with a belief in some negative. Apples, meet oranges. It’s very straight forward.
“Again, John, a lack of belief is not synonymous with a belief in some negative. Apples, meet oranges. It’s very straight forward.”
See how I put all your words in the quotes?
You’re refusal to admit that atheism is a belief is the most ‘straight forward’ part of your dialogue. Hell, you can’t even bring yourself to say, “I believe atheism is true”! You’ve gone on and on (…and on…) about atheism being a ‘lack of belief’ then rant about my ‘dishonesty’ when I ask if you believe your ‘lack of belief’ is valid.
And after a full day of hearing exactly the same arguments that motivated my writing this article in the first place, we arrive right back where we started.
Atheism is a belief.
It’s the belief that there is no God.
That’s it.
Period.
Now, Tildeb has asked you, AGAIN, to show the content YOU believe atheism has.
Come on, John… Be an adult and show us what this content is.
You say that A-theism is the default of all humanity because no one is born knowing of God. Perhaps that is true, but then again no one is born with the innate knowledge of calculus or photosynthesis or how to drive or what ice cream is, either. Or how to speak, or write, or do any civilized thing we do today. So just because something is learned doesn’t mean it’s false.
Yep.