Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: I have no beliefs about God(s) because there is nothing meaningful to engage with in the first place.

Gordon you are blatantly claiming no beliefs about God and expressing them as well!

You patently are no apatheist since you claim to have weighed up the notion of God and found it wanting.

But even that doesnt settle wether atheism is a true for you thing or true for eeryone.

I think the trouble is thinking that the statement 'merely the lack of belief in gods covers it since that includes all kind of differing claims as well as your unconvincing "non claim"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: I have no beliefs about God(s) because there is nothing meaningful to engage with in the first place.

No you claimed that "the notion of god was something....a mess" That is a claim.

Also can you demonstrate it as absolute?

And if you cannot establish that as knowledge then it is belief...............and is it thence a belief about God?

You bet your sweet bippy it is.

But with regarding this thread....does it show that atheism is just a true for me thing" since that is what the thread is asking.

[Gordon]

No you claimed that "the notion of god was something....a mess" That is a claim.

Also can you demonstrate it as absolute?

Still being silly I see: all I need do is reject the arguments offered for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, which I'd say can be paraphrased by the term 'mess'. 

But with regarding this thread....does it show that atheism is just a true for me thing" since that is what the thread is asking

No: atheism is simply a rejection of something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still being silly I see: all I need do is reject the arguments offered for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, which I'd say can be paraphrased by the term 'mess'. 

No: atheism is simply a rejection of something.

First how does this post address the question posed by the thread title.

Secondly, how are you with arguments against God?

Thirdly do the failure of the arguments for lead you to believe God is likely to exist or unlikely to exist ?

With regard to point three. Have you never considered it?

Will you never consider point 3?

Will you ever reveal your opinion if you do?

[Gordon]

First how does this post address the question posed by the thread title.

The implication is that your thread title, in which you imply that atheism is a 'thing', is wrong since it is based on your misrepresentation of atheism.

Secondly, how are you with arguments against God?

No idea, since I don't know any: it is the arguments in support of 'God' that I reject.

Thirdly do the failure of the arguments for lead you to believe God is likely to exist or unlikely to exist ?

I'd say the failure of the arguments 'for' lead me to conclude that 'God' is an inherently spurious claim and that, as such, there is nothing to engage with to the extent of having any basis whatsoever to consider 'God' as being likely or unlikely. 

With regard to point three. Have you never considered it?

Will you never consider point 3?

See my previous answer.

Will you ever reveal your opinion if you do?

Most certainly, should I ever encounter an argument 'for' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.

[BeRational]

Wrong.
This thread is about whether Atheism is a true for the individual thing or true for everyone.
There are numerous threads covering what you want to talk about which is not wether atheism is objectively true, proven or even logical.

Atheism is not a truth claim.

It is the rejection of the various God claims as they have not met the burden of proof

[BeRational]

It may be reasonable to be an agnostic but is it reasonable at any stage to be atheist...And does that bring you any closer to stating whether atheism is a true for you thing?

Agnostic is not so e half way house between theism and atheism.

I cannot believe you do not already know this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The implication is that your thread title, in which you imply that atheism is a 'thing', is wrong since it is based on your misrepresentation of atheism.

No idea, since I don't know any: it is the arguments in support of 'God' that I reject.

I'd say the failure of the arguments 'for' lead me to conclude that 'God' is an inherently spurious claim and that, as such, there is nothing to engage with to the extent of having any basis whatsoever to consider 'God' as being likely or unlikely. 

See my previous answer.

Most certainly, should I ever encounter an argument 'for' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.

Feel free to justify your first point that the thread title asserts  that anything IS a thing. How can it? It is of course a question.

Secondly I will leave it up to readers to decide if they find beliefs about god in your post. Hint. They will.

So far your answer seems to be atheism isnt a thing i.e. it  isnt anything and so I suppose it is not a just for me thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agnostic is not so e half way house between theism and atheism.

I cannot believe you do not already know this.

Completely non sequitur.

[BeRational]

Completely non sequitur.

What to you mean?

What do you think an agnostic is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What to you mean?

What do you think an agnostic is?

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.

[Gordon]

Feel free to justify your first point that the thread title asserts  that anything IS a thing. How can it? It is of course a question.

Tell me something that characterises atheism other than an a lack of a belief in 'God(s)'. You see if atheism is a 'thing' then so is agoblinism and acentaurism - so other than not holding beliefs about these mythical creatures is there anything else 'thing-like' involved?

Secondly I will leave it up to readers to decide if they find beliefs about god in your post. Hint. They will.

Super - hopefully one or two may amble along and venture an opinion.

So far your answer seems to be atheism isnt a thing i.e. it  isnt anything and so I suppose it is not a just for me thing.

For me atheism is no more than my rejection of arguments claiming 'God(s)'. 

[Maeght]

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.

No.

[BeRational]

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.

Exactly and has nothing to do with atheism.

The default position for everyone is to be an atheist.

You move from this position because you find claims of some god to  be convincing.

I have not seen any evidence to support the claim of a god.

You have, so what was it that made you move from atheism to theism?

[Gordon]

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.

Not exactly: an agnostic is someone who holds the view that the claim 'God' is not amenable to knowledge: hence an agnostic atheist is someone who has no beliefs in 'God(s)' but doesn't claim that there are no 'God(s)', since to do so would be a claim of having knowledge confirming that there are no 'God(s)'.

I'd have thought you'd have understood this by now.

[Maeght]

Not exactly: an agnostic is someone who holds the view that the claim 'God' is not amenable to knowledge: hence an agnostic atheist is someone who has no beliefs in 'God(s)' but doesn't claim that there are no 'God(s)', since to do so would be a claim of having knowledge confirming that there are no 'God(s)'.

I'd have thought you'd have understood this by now.

Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly and has nothing to do with atheism.

The default position for everyone is to be an atheist.

I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.

In fact I cannot wait.

I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.

He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.

Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......

[BeRational]

I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.

In fact I cannot wait.

I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.

He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.

Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......

Simple.

When you are born you have no beliefs!

Your beliefs come later as you become convinced of whatever it is you eventually believe in.

This is basic stuff that you should already know

[Gordon]

I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.

In fact I cannot wait.

I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.

He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.

Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......

Bearing in mind that you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what agnosticism is, as well as previously demonstrating that you've misrepresented atheism, perhaps you'd best do some homework before you throw out too many more challenges.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tell me something that characterises atheism other than an a lack of a belief in 'God(s)'. You see if atheism is a 'thing' then so is agoblinism and acentaurism - so other than not holding beliefs about these mythical creatures is there anything else 'thing-like' involved?

Supe7r - hopefully one or two may amble along and venture an opinion.

For me atheism is no more than my rejection of arguments claiming 'God(s)'.

Unfortunately lack of belief in gods can cover a belief that there are no gods as well as a host pf things. It is not as they say irreducible conceptually.

[Maeght]

Simple.

When you are born you have no beliefs!

Your beliefs come later as you become convinced of whatever it is you eventually believe in.

This is basic stuff that you should already know

How do you know what a new born baby believes in?

[BeRational]

How do you know what a new born baby believes in?

Babies have no beliefs about Gods or maths or who is prime minister etc.
These things all come later

[Maeght]

Babies have no beliefs about Gods or maths or who is prime minister etc.
These things all come later

How do you know what they believe in? Maths,PM etc is knowledge not belief.

[BeRational]

How do you know what they believe in? Maths,PM etc is knowledge not belief.

Same thing. Knowledge is just something you really really believe.

[Maeght]

Same thing. Knowledge is just something you really really believe.

Belief isn't knowledge.

How do you know what new born babies believe in?