Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

I believe we are talking about belief in God, solely here

Are agnostics making up questions now too? Jesus/

Some believe believe there is no difference between red and green. Other people can see they are colour blind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possibly, even likely, but not necessarily.

That is not how they characterize their stance to me, to wit: they know there is no god.

While he coined the term, its understanding has progressed since that day. If this is only a moot discussion of the history of the term then I withdraw my objection. Otherwise we must use the more current use.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Irrelevant. There are certain questions about god which for an agnostic which are unintelligable or unanswerable; but, that doesn't mean that ALL questions about god are unintelligable or unanswerable.

"Is god used in the bible?" Is an entirely answerable question about god.

You are mistaken. Color blind people are very and painfuly aware that there is a difference between green and red which they just can't perceive directly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That question has NOTHING to do with agnosticism.

"Agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence."

Everything else is just redundant.

Any new position should clarify a separate and distinct stance not confuse prevalent ones. For example the position of theological noncognitivism makes sense to me and I accept that ignosticism is separate and distinct from atheism, theism and agnosticism and hence is a genuine stance.

 

Who said it did? I said it was a question about god which an agnostic would find intelligible and answerable.

That is one agnostic position. Of course it is just the consequence and misses WHY you can neither prove nor disprove gods existence.

The other, equally valid, agnostic position is the personal "I have neither proved nor disproved gods existence."

You theists and atheists sure find agnostics troubling.

whatever.

 

Under your definition of atheist (believer in non-existence of god), sure.
But the OP is proposing the definition that an atheist is merely one who lacks belief in existence.
Thus the universe logically IS only composed of atheists and theists... you are either theist or not a theist. And "not a theist" = "atheist".

They might not care to include themselves, but that is more about the personal usage/adoption of the label than the label itself.

No it's not - it's using the definition proposed in the OP.

It's not a question of admiration.
Ask yourself in each case WHY the person refuses the deity proposition.
In each case the fundamental starting point will be that there is no evidence to support it.
Why do you not believe in fairies, or in the FSM?

The issue of self-identification is separate.
This is effectively Cris' requirement within his proposed definition for an atheist to have considered the position, whether or not they then adopt the label of atheist.

I am aware of that, but the point being made is that it should be if you are honest on an intellectual level.

Agnostic theists, sure - but not pure agnostics without a position on belief - even if it is just a lack of belief (which is atheism).
I am a pure agnostic... it is an epistemological issue.
It has nothing to do with belief per se, but clearly influences your position on belief.

Agreed.

The only difference between irrationality and intellectual dishonesty in this regard is understanding. I tried to think of a better word than dishonest but could not think of it.

Sure, but they are still either atheist or theist, and they are still either agnostic or not - whether they want to use the label or not.

Never said it was. I said his comment was reasonable.

I agree with the latter but the former is a matter of self-identification, i.e. of whether one chooses to use a label or not, not one of whether the label is applicable to them by dint of definition.

With regard the latter - Cris was proposing that this refusal / non-belief was based on agnosticism - if one looked at the original intention of the word.
You have disagreed based on observance of what people call themselves but you have yet to disagree on the issues of why people choose not believe.
If you can show that people do not believe for reasons (at a fundamental level) other than lack of evidence/agnosticism... I would genuinely like to hear it.

 

I have never seen evidence of non-existence. Is it even possible to obtain?
I have only ever seen people claim that what they see as the overwhelming absence of evidence to be evidence of absence, etc.

So in these cases the person is being "dishonest" / irrational... and again apologies for the term but I can find no better at the moment.

The OP is trying to use the original intended meaning, I believe, or at least to simplify things back to it.

Swarm, I don't think we're disagreeing on too much... maybe the need for self-identification and issues of usage of the "atheist" label, but that's it.

 

So? That definition is ineffectual because it includes people who are not atheists. Just because a bad definition was proposed, that doesn't mean once its short comings are known we can't proceed to better definitions.

Nope. There exist cases which are neither atheists nor theists. Your premise is false, move on.

I've done better than merely supposing answers to the question. I've actually asked actual atheists and gotten a myriad of answers. I'm telling you that is not the only reason. It would be really cool if it were. But it isn't.

Only a subset of rational atheists will substantiate this position.

Because I had a vision in which they decided to remove themselves before time began. Do you have a problem with that?

Not if you consider yourself an atheist or don't consider yourself and atheist.

Sorry, they exist and I tend to find their position as good as any. Forming a belief for or against concerning a topic for which you have no knowledge or even the possibility of knowledge is ludicrous.

You should try harder.

You fail to understand the irrational position and while it may not seem sensible to you, they are not being dishonest.

Dishonest implies deceit is being employed.

Buddhists believe or don't believe or neither believe nor disbelieve because the question is irrelevant and unproductive. (Which is essentially the position Epicurus took on it.)

Apathists just don't care about the question enough to form an opinion.

"Strong" agnostics don't find belief to to be warranted.

Irrational people have their own reasons which are other than a lack of evidence.

 

Sure. The most common is a categorical impossibility and given the whack definitions of god most theists employ, its actually fairly trivial.

Epicurus first proposed a very popular one which has become known as the problem of evil:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

The next most popular is to show that god is physically impossible. i.e. any being of sufficient mass to effect the universe and cause its creation would collapse into a singularity.

No need to apologize, just don't call the irrational dishonest when you have no reason to suppose they are being dishonest. They have enough troubles without unneeded pejorative terms.

I see the op as trying "to establish what is meant by 'atheism.' "

 

You say they are not atheists - I say they are - due to different definitions of what atheism is. If you define an atheist merely as "not theist" then they are atheist - whether they label themselves as that or not.

You can not argue that one definition is wrong merely by stating another.
You need to argue why the first is incorrect or unsuitable.
At present your entire argument is that the first is incorrect because it isn't the other.

Do you have anything else to offer?

Yet you have not provided any examples.
Name one. A single person that, by the definition provided, is neither atheist nor theist.

What reasons do they give? Let's hear them and analyse them. Or do you expect me to go on your hearsay only?

Possibly - but whether one acknowledges the position or not does not alter what the actual position is.
A blind man might not know the path he has taken to reach a point - but he took it nonetheless. But if you can provide examples of someone who does not hold a belief for a fundamental reason other than there being no reason/evidence to then go ahead.

So you agree there is no longer any evidence to support their existence? I thought you were arguing against this being the reason behind non-belief?

Wearing a label is irrelevant to what the label actually means.

And per the definition of "not theist = atheist" these people, by not holding the theistic belief are atheist, whether they refer to themselves as such or not.
Simple.

You misunderstand me - I am not saying that to be irrational is to be dishonest - only that they end up in the same place in this matter. They are two routes to the same end.
The dishonest person does so deceitfully (as good a word as any).
The irrational does it, I guess, through ignorance.
But if they remain irrational once their irrationality has been shown, then they do so deliberately/deceitfully.

If they believe in god they are theist. Otherwise they are atheist.

They do not have belief in god - they are atheist.

They do not have belief in god - they are atheist.

Provide examples and we'll see where it goes.
You may be right, but I can't see it.

Point accepeted - I should have added "other than logical impossibility". But then one merely needs to include "supercedes logical concerns" in the definition and you're back to the question.

Hopefully the clarification higher up is accepted?

But it suggests a starting definition.
We both agree on "no belief in the existence of god", I think, rather than a requirement to believe in non-existence?
But I disagree with you on an atheist only being someone who classifies themself as such. Surely whatever definition applies to 'atheism', an atheist is merely someone to who atheism applies.

I am still working on Cris' idea that agnosticism is THE basis of atheism, as you can undoubtedly tell.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are animals, plants and microorganisms atheist?

 

It's one of those terms that only applies to humans.
But strictly seen, they are.

Look people don't even regard animals as persons.

 

So my cat is an atheist? I knew there was a reason he was so immoral :bugeye:


I just asked him, he said a great many things, but mostly he looked uncomfortable.

You may be right!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's also a term that only applies to people.

Haha.. don't you love him even more now ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He's refusing to incriminate himself. @#$%#$#

 

That's cats for ya.
Wait.. incriminate ??

 

Yeah he knows we don't cater to the kafiroon, he's wary of not getting his Fit32 fix

Hey if you can go by the if they are not theist they are atheist, I can go by, if they are not theist, they are immoral.

If they can have a position on God, they can certainly have one on morality.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You mean if they are not moral, they are immoral.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

sam,

Or equally valid if they are not atheist then they are stupid. Trying to make implications where none are warranted is somewhat foolish, don't you think.

Sure. Or on why peas are green, or why the sky is blue. All are irrelevantt to the topic.

 

sam,

True to the Islamic definition. But that seems very limiting. Perhaps what you mean is "An atheist is someone who believes there is no god (no capital G)". That still implies a very specific "a god". You would need to specify exactly which god and which definition of that god. But the use of "no God" indicates your asumption that there is only one god, so you are implying that an atheist ONLY believes in the non-existence of a monotheistic god. That's very limiting, don't you think? But from your Islamc perspective, quite understanable.

Perhaps what you should say is is "An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods". But you haven't said that because that isn't a concept you endorse, the idea of polytheism, or anything other than Allah. Your perspective here is entirely Islamic that asserts that anyone who does not believe in Allah is immoral, sinful, and an enemy of Islam, and must be fought at every opportunity. Which, when we look at your posting record here we see your very obvious anti-atheistic activity as very fervent.

The history of atheism is primarily one of objections to specific theistic claims. E.g. there are Islamic atheists, Hindu atheists, and Christian atheists, etc. I.e. groups of individuals who object to their local rulers placing rules on what they should believe or not believe.

Now there are individuals who simply assert that the very concept of gods is not viable, and the Brights in particular take the naturalistic worldview that includes any claims to supernatural concepts. Biggles, here for example takes the view that everything can or will be explained by science and theism has no place in the universe. On this 'science' site there are perhaps many who would be happy with this, but many also see the "if there is no evidence" then there is nothing to say. It is this latter stance that I want to encourage.

My proposal here in this topic is to recognize that fundamental atheistic perspective of objection to theistic claims. Theism came first and some people objected. The issue was not that atheists asserted that gods do not exist and theists objected. The atheist perspective in history is overwhelmingly one of objection to theistic claims, and is not a religion or belief system in its own right.

.....

Now to the issue of belief that something does not exist versus disbelief. These are not the same thing.

The term "belief of non-existence" is a logical ALL condition. The "disbelief" position is a logical SOME condition. They are not interchangeable and this is not an issue of English grammer nuances. e.g. your argument is not convincing, try again, (implicit of SOME), as opposed to, whatever you say I believe you are wrong (ALL conditions).

The disbelief scenario is consistent with Huxley's original issue of people jumping to abolute certainties when knowledge was absent. Disbelief is not an assertion of belief.