What exactly is atheism?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Jan Ardena, Aug 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    You could have saved a lot of back and forth with me if you had said this long ago. Your position is now a lot closer to most dictionaries, including the OED, and philosophical usage. It also saves you the trouble of trying to convert anti-theists/atheists here like Q, Stranger, Medicine Woman and JDawg who include what you call anti-theists in their definition of atheist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    :shrug:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I could be mistaken but it seems to me you have identified with atheists. You have directly denied the existence of God:

    If you do identify yourself not as an atheist, but rather as an anti-theist then you are in agreement with Phlogistan's labeling system and I will edit your name off the list. If, however, you consider yourself an atheist, then I will leave the list as is. I am afraid the quote above eliminates agnostic as an option. I am open to hearing about other labeling possibilities.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:
     
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
    He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

    clearly putting you NOT in the theist camp.

    If you do not consider yourself an atheist then you do not belong on that list. If you consider yourself an anti-theist then you are using terms according to Phlog's terminology. If you consider yourself an atheist, then you disagree with his terminology, given that you denied, in the earlier cited example, the existence of God or gods.

    edit: I can see how my ironic use of 'convert' might have been misleading.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I never said this anywhere. I didn't even post the link to the dictionary until somebody aksed for it.

    I never claimed to be discussing accpetance or rejection of alternate uses of a term. I am simply providing the originally intended commonly accpeted use of the terms.

    The point in any alternate use of the term is a different discussion. It is not about accpeting or rejecting. There is simply very specific definition for these terms that have been in common use. The question is about whether or not it is reasonable to use alternate definitions.

    There is no reason to use "atheism" to describe anybody that does not claim that there is no God. There is not reason to use agnosticism to describe anybody that does not take the position that man can never know whether or not God exists.

    It is as simple as that. There has yet to be shown any legitimate reason to categorize somebody under atheism who has no position on the matter.

    Anybody who wants to claim "atheism" is all who do not take the position that there is a God might as well claim that "theism" is all who do not take the position that there is not God.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    They are trying to create some new absurd labeling system.
     
  11. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Nuts everywhere are claiming that everybody who directly denies the existence of God is "anti-theism". The proper interpretation of anti-theism is anybody who hates theists. Not anybody who directly denies the existence of God. Anybody who does not directly deny the existence of God cannot fall under atheism.
     
  12. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    No, all you are doing, is twisting definitions, without a purpose or goal. Your lies lead nowhere.

    It's not about a claim, it's about belief. Your clearly cannot make the distinction. We do not know what is true, this is the crux. We can believe, based on evidence, or reject, based on the paucity of evidence, but 'truth'? Please, that's as much an abstract concept as 'faith'.

    You are wrapped up in absolutes that you can have no knowledge of. Your head is in the sky, as always.
     
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    That's not quite true. Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists. Anti-theists are a subset of atheists, so the second usage recorded in the dictionary is redundant. "a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity."

    Atheism simply means a lack of faith. In that subset are people who go further, better described as anti-theists. You do not define the superset by the parameters of the subset. We are claiming back the word, and clearing up the mud that has been slung.

    For example, when we describe people as 'theists' we do not expect them to believe in every god. To qualify as a theist, you just need to believe in one, and that puts theists in a subset of a very large set. We make no assumption about which god theists believe in. Believing in the Christian God does not define the whole set.

    Do you see my distinction yet?
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Sorry, perhaps it's a typo in post number 321 that says theist. :shrug:
     
  15. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    yeah, the last word should read atheist.

    Now that we have done this back and forth so many times, it would be fair if you would actually mention your self-label.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

    How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

    What would be the label for that?
     
  17. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Both Phlog and I would call that an atheist. To be fussy I might add that it is a weak atheist (or soft atheist) -which might set Phlog's teeth gnashing.

    But if that is your stance then

    is problematic. Because you are making an ontological claim that God(s) does/do not exist, period.

    That is what I would call a hard atheist stance and Phlog would call an anti-theist and he would not want you to categorize yourself as an atheist. He has become slightly more flexible on this issue, but my sense is he still would prefer 'anti-theist' for those who claim there is no God.
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
    In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  20. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    So you would consider it slung mud to be considered an 'anti-theist'.

    I've seen your distinction for ages. If you want you can go back to where we first started banging heads and I think you will find yourself saying that anti-theists were not atheists.

    I think part of the problem is you were fighting with people who only wanted atheist to be what you call anti-theist. I was not taking that position but saying that the word is and has been used to cover both what you call theists and anti-theists. You kept telling me this was incorrect AND a recent invention. The latter is clearly incorrect. It is not a recent usage of the word. I missed at the time that you did say in one post that anti-theists were a subset of atheists, but in other posts you told me that if someone used atheist to include both anti-theists and theists, they were incorrect.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  21. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I agree and so does the OED and so the word has been used for hundreds of years.

    Here's what interests me, right now.

    I'll use Phlog's terminology.

    Anti-theists believe there is no God.
    Atheists lack a belief in God.

    The former are making a claim.
    Why do the latter, here, never challenge the former on that claim?

    It even sounds like Phlog considers it an insult to be confused with an anti-theist. That this way of defining atheism is slinging mud at atheists.
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    It's not problematic at all, I am referring to theists whose claims are little more than what they can muster from the imaginative, which I was stating where their gods must exist, if they exist at all.

    I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Simon,
    Anti-theistm (and I'm going by the definition you gave) is just a form of atheism.
    Atheism is the entire group of people that do not believe in any God (see image above). Strong, weak, anti-, etc atheism all fall within this group, but are just different levels of extremity or different ways of looking at it.
    That's how I see it anyway.. and I think it's the most logical way to view it as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page