Atheism

[Absane]

Please - this is NOT a thread about atheism vs. theism.

A definition of atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural existence. To say that one does not believe in something does not imply one denies the existence of something, correct? Or am I wrong? How could I articulate such language to someone of this?

[Enmos]

That's exactly what it means. If you don't believe in something, it means that you don't think that that something exists.

[Absane]

That's exactly what it means. If you don't believe in something, it means that you don't think that that something exists.

But the definition of belief is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something."

So to NOT belief in something is to take no mental acceptance of blah blah blah.

So I don't accept something as true... that doesn't imply I accept it as false.

[Enmos]

So I don't accept something as true... that doesn't imply I accept it as false.

Of course it does mean that.. :confused:

[Fraggle Rocker]

So I don't accept something as true... that doesn't imply I accept it as false.This is a place of science. In science (as opposed to mathematics, philosophy or detective work), every assertion has three possible states:True beyond a reasonable doubt Not true beyond a reasonable doubt FalseHowever, within the second category there is a range of doubt. Some assertions are hypotheses that are being investigated; evidence in the form of observations or reasoning has been provided and it is being tested or peer-reviewed. But other assertions fall closer to the realm of crackpottery: they contradict canonical theories and they either lack evidence or their evidence is of such poor quality that it has been easily falsified. These assertions are therefore extraordinary. The Rule of Laplace tells us that an we are not obliged to treat an extraordinary assertion with respect--to "waste" any of science's finite bandwidth on it--until someone at last offers the extraordinary evidence needed to redeem it from the realm of crackpottery.

So the position of the atheist is:To assert that a supernatural universe exists, whose forces and creatures can perturb the operation of the natural universe, is an extraordinary assertion. Until extraordinary evidence is supplied to support it, we are not obliged to treat it with respect.

[Tyler]

To be fair, Fraggle, the same holds true in mathematics. What you're describing is the process of science rather than the outcome. The same process occurs in mathematics.

But both enterprises seek to work towards reaching either 'true' or 'false' as a final statement. And both enterprises can sometimes take an extremely long time to reach that destination.

[Fraggle Rocker]

To be fair, Fraggle, the same holds true in mathematics. What you're describing is the process of science rather than the outcome. The same process occurs in mathematics. But both enterprises seek to work towards reaching either 'true' or 'false' as a final statement. And both enterprises can sometimes take an extremely long time to reach that destination.No. There's a qualitative difference between the testing of a scientific hypothesis and the testing of a mathematical hypothesis. Mathematics deals exclusively with abstractions, so its theories can be proven "completely true" by sheer logical reasoning.

Scientific theories are predictions of the future behavior of the natural universe. They use logical reasoning, but they apply it to empirical observations rather than to abstractions. Therefore a scientific theory can only be proven "true beyond a reasonable doubt" as the number of supporting observations continues to grow.

Scientific theories can be and occasionally are falsified, or at least subject to revision.

[Tyler]

And I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that the process is the same in both fields. As well, what "true" means in mathematics is very difficult to pinpoint. Ever since Godel's proof, it's been a bit of a mess to really say anything is "true" in mathematics.

You're right that there is no "true beyond a reasonable doubt" in mathematics, instead there is "true... whatever the hell that means..." But there is "not true within reasonable doubt" and "false" the same as in science. And the same as in science the middle category can be broken down into crackpottery and reasonable propositions.

Unless you're a neo-Platonist, in which case everything (in science or math) is either true or false already and there's no point in defining things otherwise.

[Michael]

Everyone is atheist - for at least one of the millions and millions of Gods and Goddesses and Aliens. . . .

Atheism = lacking a belief. Everyone is born an atheist and I wouldn't be surprized if in that last second we all die an atheist.

[Nasor]

I tried to come up with a scenario where there's a practical difference, and the only thing I could think of would be determining whether or not a person who has never heard of gods should be labeled as an atheist. Such a person doesn't believe in any gods, but he also hasn't affirmatively rejected them either. Other than that, I'm not sure why it would matter. Although I suppose if one wanted to have a discussion about fine nuances of semantics, this would be the place for it...

[charles brough]

"True" and "false," "good" and "evil" are religious concepts. They have no scientific meaning. Science is theory, more accurate theory than religion. I am an atheist because I do not believe "spirits" of any kind exist. I do recognize that there is such a thing as a belief in "spirits," but that belief does not compromise my atheism at all.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[John99]

Everyone is atheist - for at least one of the millions and millions of Gods and Goddesses and Aliens. . . .

Atheism = lacking a belief. Everyone is born an atheist and I wouldn't be surprized if in that last second we all die an atheist.

Mike, i dont think that is at all realistic. These beliefs came from someplace, you can disregard organized beliefs but even the slightest acknowledgement that there may be something more to existence than time spent here on earth means that a person is not an Atheist.

I have always been agnostic and i really believe or even know for a fact i would be an agnostic without any interaction or outside influences. The truth is that true atheism is very rare in humans and tbh many atheist's seem to get agnostic and atheist mixed up.

agnostics dont have a movement to latch onto either, so people looking to belong or give themselves a title use atheist but i dont believe they are being completely honest with themselves.

[clusteringflux]

Please - this is NOT a thread about atheism vs. theism.



No, no. Of course it isn't. Nor will the 10 new threads started this week.

I purpose an Atheist Mental Masturbation Super Thread. You know, to save bandwidth or server space or whatever excuse you folks use to censor this place.:)

[Fraggle Rocker]

Everyone is born an atheist. . . .Jung does not agree with that. He says that belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive motif that occurs in all cultures in all eras. He was not a biologist, but to restate it in contemporary scientific terminology, this belief is pre-programmed into our synapses by our DNA, just like other instincts such as the urge to run away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face. Jung would say that everyone is born a theist, although a geneticist would qualify that statement to accommodate the effect of mutation."True" and "false," "good" and "evil" are religious concepts.Please provide some evidence or reasoning to support that assertion. This is a place of science so consider this request a peer review. I find that your assertion verges on the extraordinary and I'm tempted to apply the Rule of Laplace. Please don't ask us to read an entire website. You learned to write book reports in school like the rest of us so you can give us a quick abstract of the reasoning behind that assertion.. . . . the only thing I could think of would be determining whether or not a person who has never heard of gods should be labeled as an atheist.I was raised in a household where gods were never discussed so I didn't know what they were. However, for the same reason I would not have understood the word "atheist" until I was introduced to the concept of gods.

Yes, perhaps the fact that I never felt an instinctive urge to take up religion makes me one of the mutants I referred to earlier.No, no. Of course it isn't [about atheism].I have been watching this thread carefully and am doing my best to keep it on topic.Nor will the 10 new threads started this week.If they're not started on my board then it's up to somebody else to moderate them.. . . . You know, to save bandwidth or server space or whatever excuse you folks use to censor this place.For the last two or three years, the goal of the site administrators has been to restore SciForums to the status of a place of science, as it was ten years ago. The home page has been reorganized so Free Thoughts is no longer on top, moderators have been appointed who take a dim view of trolling, the scientific method is applied even to discussions of dating and folk music (although not as rigorously as I would like), and members who flout the rules have been banned.

We do occasionally combine threads to make discussions easier to follow and participate in. But as an American I support the principle of free speech and I only "censor" posts when they violate the rules, such as trolling, racism, plagiarism, pornography or instructions on the performance of illegal activities. I don't necessarily agree with all of the rules but like the rest of you, I must uphold them anyway or go start my own website with my own rules.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Every true and false go at it and which ever gets on top could still be explained more or later to be falsified, as in a astroid didn't necessarily die by a astroid but a bunch of things could have contributed to it or an astroid never hit at all. So who really knows because to a certain extent there is something beyond everything you may know. Pointing figures and tunnel vision are the worst.* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

Lala, could you please spend a little more time composing your posts. That one does not make very much sense as written. Please take to heart my earlier criticism that your sentences are waaaay too long. You get lost in them and so do we.

Please edit your post so it contributes to the discussion.

Thanks.

[laladopi]

Recomposition:

Everything that we know as being false could later be proven through time as true, same for something being true could later be falsified. For example the ancient dinosaurs where not in fact killed by an asteroid per say but rather a combination of disasters, not necessarily including an asteroid.

We only know things to a certain extent, then it becomes out of our hands and into space for we have no idea.

[charles brough]

.Please provide some evidence or reasoning to support that assertion. This is a place of science so consider this request a peer review. I find that your assertion verges on the extraordinary and I'm tempted to apply the Rule of Laplace.

Alright. I say there is no "truth" and "false" in that scientific knowledge is a quest to improve the accuracy of what we know or need to know. It is not abstract "Truth," the final, total answer to anything. It is always just more accurate than what we used to believe. We call it theory, as in the theory of Evolution.

Amittedly, it is practical to use the word "true" when judging if you went to the market yesterday or not, but even much of such statements are not absolute and are only of varying degrees of accuracy. Such as "the Earth is round," well, not quite but almost . . .

And regarding "evil," the word comes from the old-religion concept that the world is all "good' or "evil," the faithful being "good" and the rest motivated by the devil. The opposite of "good" is "bad", but everyone thinks they are "good" or at least justified in what they do. People are not with "evil" ("satanic") intent. Even when they harm another person, they think that person deserves it or that they have for some reason some right to do it.

Most criminals believe they are justified in what they do because they feel they are persecuted. They feel they are just getting what they deserve from those who they think exploit them.

The CEO of a corporation like Ken Lay at Enron believe they are doing the right thing for the stockholder by making impressive profits. They think they are just doing better by making more and are within the law. To be sure the law allows it, even if they have to give contributions to Congressmen to get them to write the laws in ways that give the most money to the stockholders. By doing all that, they expect to make a lot of money they feel they deserve.

People die from accidents and storms and that is "bad" but it is not "evil" because there is no satanic force behind it. Only the faithful think that it might be a Satan involved, not scientists like you and I.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[Liebling]

For me, Atheism isn't an action but an inaction. I don't disbelieve there is a God or Gods, I simply don't bother myself with the idea at all. There is no reason to, when most things are accurately described by science. Using logic and reason, there is no need for a belief system. But I don't assert that there is no God or Gods, I don't admonish people who think there is. I am sure there is a God for certain people, and it helps them with their life. It's actually a force in their life that helps them with a path they are on personally. Since the mind is a tricky place, and because the world is under the subjective view of each individual person, I can see a need for God for certain people. I'm just not one of those people.

It's not an active thing like disbelief, but an absence of interest either way.

[Crunchy Cat]

A definition of atheism is the disbelief in a supernatural existence.

That's a definition alright.


To say that one does not believe in something does not imply one denies the existence of something, correct?

This is kind of an awkward questions. To say that one does not believe in something has a couple of potential meanings.

*It could mean that you don't believe in the behavior of that *something* (ex. I don't believe in my dog's ability to protect me).
*It could also mean that you don't accept an assertion as true.

In general to "deny" the existence of something carries a strong implication that the *something* exists in the first place. It's why it's called denial.


Or am I wrong? How could I articulate such language to someone of this?

To "believe" generically means to "accept as true" and examining atheistic belief results in the following logical positions:

1) I accept it is true that omnipotent life does not exist.
2) I don't accept it as true that omnipotent life exists.
3) I accept it is true that all human claims of omnipotent life do not exist.
4) I don't accept it as true that all human claims of omnipotent life exists.

5) I deny that omnipotent life exists.
6) I deny that all human claims of omnipotent life exists.

7) I don't have enough information.
8) I don't have enough interest.

We can now widdle away at these positions to see if we can find one that represents an average of atheism (one is always better as people are more likely to comprehend and want to comprehend one position than multiple ones).

If we apply the constraint that enough information is present, interest is present, and denial is absent then we are left with positions 1)-4). If we apply the constraint that all possible information is not present then we can eliminate position 1). If we apply the constraint of having a positive evidence-based claim then positions 2) and 4) are eliminated.

So what we are left with is position 3) and all its constraints. If we put it all together while trying to retain simplicity then we get:

*Atheism is a belief, based on empirical knowedge and evidence, that all human claims of God are false.

[Crunchy Cat]

Forgot to mention... a benefit of that definition is that while you reject human claims, you are not rejecting the existence of anything outside the scope of those human claims.

It's a cleaner and presumably more accurate definition than the "lack of belief" / "weak atheism" definitions that theists always argue with.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Atheism IS simply lacking a belief in any god or gods. That is it.
It doesn't matter whether the person believes in ghosts, witches, aliens or unicorns. It doesn't matter whether the person has heard of gods or been preached to. It doesn't matter whether the person has rejected the notion or simply never accepted it.
Agnosticism is simply lacking knowledge of any god or gods.
Lacking knowledge of gods = lacking belief in gods.
Lacking belief in gods = lacking knowledge of gods.
Atheist = agnostic.
Weak atheist & strong atheist are ridiculous.
While the selfcontradictory god of the KJV cannot exist, to state positively that there are no gods is nearly as absurd as proclaiming there are gods which can't be proven.
IF god belief is partly, mostly or completely caused by DNA, a baby IS yet an atheist.
I strongly suspect it is partly genetic but before I believe it is mostly or completely so, I'd have to see a large number of people go from birth to age 40 with absolutely no religious influence & see what results.

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheism IS simply lacking a belief in any god or gods. That is it...

I'll challenge this definition on two grounds:

1) Most theists have immense difficulty processing the concept of a "lack of belief" and they cannot get past it. Makes for bad communication and comprehension.

2) I have yet to meet an atheist whom doesn't outright reject all positive human claims of the existence of God(s).

Based on this, I would propose the definition I provided earlier is better.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

"Challenge" to your heart's content. Your belief doesn't determine the definition.
Theists' difficulties are no factor in understanding the definition. There ARE people who lack belief, regardless of whether any or all theists can process it.
Bad communication & comprehension result from people putting spin & connotation on words & fabricating definitions which suit them.
You seem unable to understand the words accept, deny, reject & belief.
Regardless of whether an atheist says "There are no gods", "There may be gods but I have no evidence of them" or whatever, atheism is simply lack of belief in any god(s).
"I don't believe in gods" does not equal "I believe there are no gods".
No. It's not better. It's flat wrong.
This is 1 of the simplest things any reasonable person should easily understand. People want to make it something it's not.

[Crunchy Cat]

"Challenge" to your heart's content. Your belief doesn't determine the definition.

Correct, just as yours doesn't. Definitions change over time and I am providing an argument for a definition update. Consequently, I would point out that most dictionaries do not support your definition (just in case you were under the notion they did).


Theists' difficulties are no factor in understanding the definition. There ARE people who lack belief, regardless of whether any or all theists can process it.


I agree and a definition is more useful if a majority of a population can understand it.


Bad communication & comprehension result from people putting spin & connotation on words & fabricating definitions which suit them.

Sometimes. Other times definitions are incorrect or not constructed with intuitiveness in mind.


You seem unable to understand the words accept, deny, reject & belief.

I do? You are welcome to provide evidence for the claim.


Regardless of whether an atheist says "There are no gods", "There may be gods but I have no evidence of them" or whatever, atheism is simply lack of belief in any god(s).

Are you an atheist? If so, do you simply have an absence of belief in the great god Odin or do you know he's made up fantasy? If it's the latter then you have a positive belief... specifically that Odin doesn't exist.


"I don't believe in gods" does not equal "I believe there are no gods".


I agree. "I don't believe in the existence of gods" also does not equal "I believe there are no gods". From what I have seen, most (if not all) atheists outright reject any human claims of a 'God'. Thor, Odin, Jesus, Allah, you name it. So while they may have a lack of belief in the generic idea of a God, they positively believe that the human claims of God are 100% false. Please, go ahead and lie to me and claim you simply lack a belief in Odin... ignore your knowledge that Odin is man-made fantasy and do it right here in this thread.


No. It's not better. It's flat wrong.
This is 1 of the simplest things any reasonable person should easily understand. People want to make it something it's not.

What you compared and contrasted in quotes wasn't my definition (did you even read it?). I don't think my definition is wrong but you are welcome to show me if it is, Consequently, part of my argument is that the "lack of belief" definition is in error. Additionally, too many people just don't get it... and if they don't get it then they invent things to fill the comprehension gap. That's bad.

Read the definition I proposed, re-read the arguments for it, and if you disagree then show me why.

[Liebling]

For theists, I think there is a black and white kind of thing. Either you believe or you do not believe, and there is action involved. They cannot fathom for the most part, an ability to just not care either way. For them, believing is a foundation stone in their lives on which they build most things and they might feel like something has to be in that place for non-believers. That something becomes atheism to them, and all the atheists must build their lives on that foundation. The foundation being the non-existence of a God or Gods. They don't get that we just don't build the idea into our foundation at all. We don't need anything to replace the lack of belief.

It's not that I believe or disbelieve. I just am ambivalent about the whole thing, and that requires no action. But for all definitions, I am an atheist because I don't believe in a God or Gods. The opposite of believing is an absence of belief, not an action of active non-belief. It's a common misconception.

[charles brough]

STRANGER says: ""I don't believe in gods" does not equal "I believe there are no gods".

It does not EXACTLY equal it, but then does anything have an exact equal? If you say you do not believe in gods, does that mean you accept that there might be gods because you do not believe there are no gods?

Also, atheists should not, I believe, even deal with gods. Doing so can imply they believe in other "spirits." Why not be more explicit? I always deal with the non-existence of "spirits" of any kind. There is no reason to believe any of them exist, "gods," "demons," "angels," "munchkins" or even "Santa Claus!" (oh NO!):shrug:

Moreover, why quibble and hedge as some do who claim to be agnostic? That is, to me, a pallid, timorous approach to an issue of supreme importance. Take a stand, everyone. Stand on principle and don't be afraid to come out of the closet when the issue comes up!

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[Liebling]

Perhaps the statement then, that an atheist can make is; I have no God or Gods.

Thereby not offending those that do, nor provoking an argument of the "prove-it!" sort.

I simply don't care to even waste time on the idea, as it is not relevant in my life.

I don't think about other spirits either. But I think that it is exceedingly difficult for theists to understand where atheists are coming from. Most atheists were once theists, due to indoctrination at a young age and most of those people are vehemently against religion for good reason, it lied to them. Some of us were never believers, like myself and don't have a vested interest either way.

All beliefs are personal beliefs, and thereby subjective to the person. Even two people of the same faith do not agree on all things. But for atheists, there is no belief to argue about. There is nothing.

[charles brough]

Yes, you are correct: atheists have no common beliefs---just a negative belief. That is our weakness, we have nothing common between us, no means of achieving unity and, hence, no ability to get together and achieve anything---such as replacing the old religious system and turning our society around for the better. We lack the cohesion the faithful have. We lack their sense of community. Because they have what we lack, I do not hate religions. I only hate the fact that they get old and need to be replaced.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[Liebling]

I think that is the way with most of the atheists I know. It's not that they hate believers in-so-much-as they hate religious dogma. Religion has the power to both conquer and divide groups of people it finds worthy or unworthy according to it's own subjective standards. The fact that they do this seemingly at God's will does not matter as much as the fact that they are doing it. Religion is a weapon that has been used in too many wars, and over too many centuries. Even secular humanists in all their hypocrisy, confer no God or Gods exist is not without it's dogma and judging system.

It seems that the misconception is that atheists are attacking God, but in reality they are attacking religion. They don't care much whether or not God exists. They only know that these ideologies bring about strife and problems, even if they also bring comfort to the masses.

[Fraggle Rocker]

* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

I think we have very nearly exhausted the linguistics of this issue. The thread is starting to veer off into philosophy. No other request for the definition of a word has generated so much debate, and this isn't even a particularly obscure word.

We're no longer arguing over what the word "atheism" means. We're asking whether atheism is an attitude, philosophy, instinct or belief system; how and why some people are atheists, some are not, and others have been both at different points in their lives; what being an atheist means to atheists and what it means to others.

I'm normally more than tolerant of meandering discussions on this board since it doesn't get a lot of traffic, and this topic is even one of personal interest to me. Nonetheless I think it's gotten to the point where it would fare better in the Philosophy or Comparative Religion subforum. More points of view would be expressed there and there might even be some deeper scholarship manifested.

Let's please see if there's anything more we can say about the word "atheism" that is at least vaguely pertinent to linguistics. If not, I'll be tempted to move the thread to another board.

(Yes, I see that some of us are trying. Keep up the good work.)

Thanks,
--F.R.