Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

Atheism: Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. www.lackofbelief.com...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

And that differs from belief in a God how?

a reply to: Annee

uh...that one was a killer. I could hardly read it all

I dont think there is a need to go that deep for this definition. It appears overly defensive...

To me it's simply..."not believing in human concept of a deity". Because we are children. And children know jack...to put it simply

English, particularly, has some issues successfully pointing to or referring the quality of non-existence. Partially, this is due to the philosophical position that even ideas or concepts have "existence."

Unicorns exist. There are pictures, paintings, stories and songs about them.

That is an imaginary existence. I have no issue allowing that God (or gods) have an imaginary existence.

There is, however, a semantic fallacy in the statement one cannot have a "lack of belief."

Many concepts refer to the non-presence or lack or absence of some thing, and these concepts are real and meaningful.

Cold. Vacuum. Darkness. Emptiness. Such words can have a sort of negative or nihilistic flavour to them, as, they refer to the absence of some quality or thing. Heat. Air. Light. These are all good things in terms of human experience.

For those who find the concept of "God" positive, meaningful, precious or soothing ... the word atheism has a similar negative connotation.

However, for those of us in the midst of the experience ... there is no negativity, per se. Just absence.

Another way of thinking of it ...

Given that A= Odin, B=Ra, C=Zeus, and D=Jesus/Yahweh/Spooky

A believer of whatever stripe (they are adherents of God D) has no issue stating that God A or B doesn't exist because they lack belief in Gods A and B and C.

A Christian [or insert believer type here] believes that a belief in Odin or Ra or Zeus is delusion, misunderstanding, ignorance.

The difference is that an atheist lacks belief in one less God than the Christian ...

E=None of the Above.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

atheists does not say there is no god. it can't, atheism is we do not accept any claims of a god existing.

now there is a thing called anti-theist, which i am a part of. i learned it from satanism then refined it thru philosophy and ethics. its the stance that is, I do not want there to be a god. not saying i know or believe there isnt a god, only that i wish there to be no god. and we can go into that as well, but a new thread would be better

just for the record if any evidence that is non-contradictory or too vague is provided, i will believe in a god.


i quoted the wrong post sorry

originally posted by: Annee
Atheism: Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. www.lackofbelief.com...

I don't accept your source. Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing. I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you. Maybe it's my brainwashing studying philosophy but there is a method of debate which much address positions, claims, and arguement. Your ignoring important steps in logic in my opinion.

I have already been warned by the op so I won't go off topic anymore. If you think a person claiming to know there is no God/gods is different than a lack of belief in God or gods is different from a logic, and claim standpoint there isn't much more to say anyway.

So what is a person who claims there is no God actively ? Who says there is no God it's all make believe?

originally posted by: luthier

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

Talk about splitting hairs.

Of course you can have a personal philosophy. Its called thinking.

The word "philosophy" comes from two roots, "philo" and "Sophia," which mean "love" and "Wisdom." Thus philosophy is the love of wisdom and, in actual practice, the pursuit, study of, and enquiry into wisdom. Some great philosophers have called philosophy the art of thinking; others have described it as the systematic study of human thought and feeling. Still others have said that whereas in real life people think about things, in philosophy they think about thinking.

So, here begins the initial journey of thinking about thinking. Because most philosophers also think about feelings--the meanings of artistic feelings, emotional feelings, and intuitions--feelings should be included, too. In fact, there is one more step to take: one simply can call all thoughts and all feelings perceptions. Usually the word "perception" means what one sees, hears, smells, tastes, and feels by touch. Some philosophy does examine external perceptions.

However, there are inner perceptions, too: thinking and inner feelings are ways in which people also come to know themselves. Therefore, it is possible to describe philosophy as the activity of thinking about knowing, or thinking about perception. Everyone is a practitioner of philosophy when he or she asks, "How do I know that what I think is right?" or "What is the nature of love?" Philosophy is more than just being aware--it asks questions about how everyone is aware. www.tc.umn.edu...

a reply to: luthier

Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing.

hey man...it's within the thread..."dangers of atheism"...definitions of atheism and arguments are perfectly within thread subject.

I have already been warned by the op so I won't go off topic anymore

No you havent been warned I dont have any MOD power...nor would I ever report you man. I think reporting is for sissies

Carry on.

originally posted by: luthier
So what is a person who claims there is no God actively ? Who says there is no God it's all make believe?

That is their personal philosophy (thinking).

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

Talk about splitting hairs.

Of course you can have a personal philosophy. Its called thinking.

The word "philosophy" comes from two roots, "philo" and "Sophia," which mean "love" and "Wisdom." Thus philosophy is the love of wisdom and, in actual practice, the pursuit, study of, and enquiry into wisdom. Some great philosophers have called philosophy the art of thinking; others have described it as the systematic study of human thought and feeling. Still others have said that whereas in real life people think about things, in philosophy they think about thinking.

So, here begins the initial journey of thinking about thinking. Because most philosophers also think about feelings--the meanings of artistic feelings, emotional feelings, and intuitions--feelings should be included, too. In fact, there is one more step to take: one simply can call all thoughts and all feelings perceptions. Usually the word "perception" means what one sees, hears, smells, tastes, and feels by touch. Some philosophy does examine external perceptions.

However, there are inner perceptions, too: thinking and inner feelings are ways in which people also come to know themselves. Therefore, it is possible to describe philosophy as the activity of thinking about knowing, or thinking about perception. Everyone is a practitioner of philosophy when he or she asks, "How do I know that what I think is right?" or "What is the nature of love?" Philosophy is more than just being aware--it asks questions about how everyone is aware. www.tc.umn.edu...

Ate you actually saying you are unaware of the subject philosophy? The discipline of philosophy? There is a big difference.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Atheism: Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. www.lackofbelief.com...

I don't accept your source. Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing. I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

Simple question.

Are you an atheist?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: luthier

Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing.

hey man...it's within the thread..."dangers of atheism"...definitions of atheism and arguments are perfectly within thread subject.

I have already been warned by the op so I won't go off topic anymore

No you havent been warned

I dont have any MOD power...nor would I ever report you man. I think reporting is for sissies

Carry on.

OK thanks.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Atheism: Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. www.lackofbelief.com...

I don't accept your source. Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing. I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

Simple question.

Are you an atheist?

Sometimes. But usually lean a little Deist.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I'm dying to know...who do you define yourself ? If you dont mind.

Do you believe in some kind of higher power ?

I prefer to define myself with actions instead of labels. Actions prove while labels can only ever claim. I will be labelled by others in their struggle to define me, but I personally do not struggle with my own definition, and I do not require the need to fit into this or that box.

The only label I require is my name.

I do not believe in higher powers.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

Talk about splitting hairs.

Of course you can have a personal philosophy. Its called thinking.

The word "philosophy" comes from two roots, "philo" and "Sophia," which mean "love" and "Wisdom." Thus philosophy is the love of wisdom and, in actual practice, the pursuit, study of, and enquiry into wisdom. Some great philosophers have called philosophy the art of thinking; others have described it as the systematic study of human thought and feeling. Still others have said that whereas in real life people think about things, in philosophy they think about thinking.

So, here begins the initial journey of thinking about thinking. Because most philosophers also think about feelings--the meanings of artistic feelings, emotional feelings, and intuitions--feelings should be included, too. In fact, there is one more step to take: one simply can call all thoughts and all feelings perceptions. Usually the word "perception" means what one sees, hears, smells, tastes, and feels by touch. Some philosophy does examine external perceptions.

However, there are inner perceptions, too: thinking and inner feelings are ways in which people also come to know themselves. Therefore, it is possible to describe philosophy as the activity of thinking about knowing, or thinking about perception. Everyone is a practitioner of philosophy when he or she asks, "How do I know that what I think is right?" or "What is the nature of love?" Philosophy is more than just being aware--it asks questions about how everyone is aware. www.tc.umn.edu...

Ate you actually saying you are unaware of the subject philosophy? The discipline of philosophy? There is a big difference.

I know that you have decided to pigeonhole philosophy to mean what you want it to mean.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Atheism: Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1. I believe Santa is coming to town
2. I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3. That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1. I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2. I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3. I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief. www.lackofbelief.com...

I don't accept your source. Even if its a genetic fallacy and I don't think it's fair to this thread to keep argueing. I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

Simple question.

Are you an atheist?

Sometimes. But usually lean a little Deist.

OK, I am atheist.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

atheists does not say there is no god. it can't, atheism is we do not accept any claims of a god existing.

now there is a thing called anti-theist, which i am a part of. i learned it from satanism then refined it thru philosophy and ethics. its the stance that is, I do not want there to be a god. not saying i know or believe there isnt a god, only that i wish there to be no god. and we can go into that as well, but a new thread would be better

just for the record if any evidence that is non-contradictory or too vague is provided, i will believe in a god.

i quoted the wrong post sorry

Check out Dr Barnes on common sense atheism. His lecture on Cosmology and fine tuning.

a reply to: vjr1113

here we go again. atheist is a response to a claim.

you claim there is a god, our response is we do not believe your claim. that's it. we cannot say there is no god because there is no way to prove it. if you say atheism is more than a response to a claim made by deists/theists, it is you that is redefining terms.

Atheism has a thousands year history. To say atheism is merely a response to theists, flies in the face of historical fact.

How do you know there is no way to prove there is no God? What evidence suggests such an assertion?