Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[Pete]

You mean has chosen to reject its existence.

There's that "reject" word again. What do you think it implies?

If you "reject" an idea, does that mean you are certain that it is false, that you hold the (fallible) opinion that it is false, that you do not accept it as a certainty, or what?

 

[S.A.M.]

There's that "reject" word again. What do you think it implies?

If you "reject" an idea, does that mean you are certain that it is false, that you hold the (fallible) opinion that it is false, that you do not accept it as a certainty, or what?

None of the above. It means that you are aware of an idea and choose to reject it.

 

[Sarkus]

Ah. So you are saying white and non black are synonyms.

No, I am not saying that.

As I have pointed out there are many people who are non theists, the more general term, but not all non theists are atheists, a specific subset of non theists.

You cannot by fiat just declare all non theists to be atheists and this is especially so if you wish to claim the rational and moral high ground.

Yet you are doing just this - just declaring that not all non theists are atheists. You are doing this based on your definition of what is an atheist.
I am doing likewise based on the definition I am using, and as proposed by the OP.

No, this is you studiously ignoring my examples of people who are neither theists nor atheists.

And they are only neither atheists nor theists under YOUR definition of what an atheist is... but under mine they are atheist.
So again I say that you are merely saying "Your definition is wrong 'cos it isn't the same as mine".

No, I have in several places indicated why they aren't atheists, which you have yet to counter. Your definition is faulty and unsupportable.
Mine describes the available data accurately and aligns with how people report themselves.

See above.
My definition is as given in the OP. You are merely interpeting the available data in accordance with YOUR definition - and thus doing nothing but saying "Your definition is wrong 'cos it isn't the same as mine".

When you actually are wrong and I actually am right, you bet.

Ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't there.

"Your definition is wrong 'cos it isn't the same as mine". And ignoring that this is your position doesn't mean that it isn't.

No you dismissed them out of hand merely because they counter your "definition."

Lol...
I dismissed them out of hand because you merely came along with an alternative definition without actually countering the first other than saying that it doesn't agree with yours.

Unfortunately it is not the case that only atheists do not hold to a belief in gods. So it is ok to say an atheist does not hold to a belief in gods, but it is not ok to say any one who does not hold to a belief in gods is an atheist.

And yet the only examples you can give are those who your definition states are not atheist yet who would fall under atheism under the definition I am using and that you are trying to counter.
You are thus, even though you fail to see it, offering nothing more than: "Your definition is wrong 'cos it isn't the same as mine".

Me? I don't even know what a "god" is supposed to be. How should I know?

So you do not have a belief in god, so you are atheist.

If you act irrationally shouldn't I?

When I do, feel free. Until then you should refrain.

I disagree. Since "god" is undefined and there are a number of positions possible all of which amount to a judgement call on belief, who you identify with is perhaps the most important aspect of it all.

As explained earlier - this is merely choice of label to wear, not whether it applies or not.

The old you are either with us or against us; or you aren't.

Not quite. It's the old "You are either with us... or you aren't". There is no need to be "against us".

Ah, but by that reasoning I'm equally a theist, but I choose not to use the lable.

So you do believe in god???
There are two labels on the table.... theist or atheist.
If you don't select theist, the atheist one is applicable whether you choose to wear it or not. Most atheists will label themselves as something other than "atheist" because it covers such a broad range of people with differing philosophical views. But what is consistent among them all is that they are not theist.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
You want to label yourself under one of the many philosophies that are under the umbrella rather than atheist... go ahead. That is just a matter of usage, not philosophy.

Is there a point to that question?
Tell me what a "god" is?
Then tell me why belief would be relevant?

I'm dead serious. If you can't tell me what a god is and why belief would be relavant, I can't answer your question. Does that really mean I'm an "atheist?"

So your answer is, quite reasonably, "no, you don't hold a belief in gods" - at least until someone can adequately explain to you what a god is etc - and yes, this does make you an atheist.


And if you wish to counter all this - please, please, please do more than just say "your definition is wrong... and I can prove it because under my definition these people wouldn't be atheist!" - as this does not counter the definition I am using.

 

[Enmos]

Since "god" is undefined

What the hell? Then what do theists believe in?
How can you believe in something you don't even have a definition of?

 

[lixluke]

The only dillema is people try to redefine atheism to be non-theism. Atheism is not non-theism. Atheism is not an absence of a belief. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God.

 

[Enmos]

The only dillema is people try to redefine atheism to be non-theism. Atheism is not non-theism. Atheism is not an absence of a belief. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God.

Atheism is exactly non-theism.

 

[lixluke]

Atheism is exactly non-theism.

Atheism is a subset of non-theism. Not all non-theists are atheists. Non-theists are simply anybody that doens't take the theist position. Non-theists include those who claim there is no God, and those who are inconclusive on the matter. Atheism only includes those who claim there is no God. It is pointless to try to change the definition of atheism to include all non-theists.

 

[Enmos]

Atheism is a subset of non-theism. Not all non-theists are atheists. Non-theists are simply anybody that doens't take the theist position. Non-theists include those who claim there is no God, and those who are inconclusive on the matter. Atheism only includes those who claim there is no God. It is pointless to try to change the definition of atheism to include all non-theists.

No, atheism is not taking the theist position.
An atheist is defined by his or her lack of believe in god. And that includes people that believe that there is no god, people that are undecided, and (for the most part) people that simply do not believe in any god.

 

[quadraphonics]

So after umpteen threads on this topic, and who-knows-how-many posts, I'm left with one nagging question: why are certain types so invested in the premise that atheism must be a positive belief?

I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Enmos]

why are certain types so invested in the premise that atheism must be a positive belief?

Good question. I think it is because then theists can accuse atheists of the same thing they are doing and then they can use atheist arguments against themselves.

 

[lixluke]

Non-theism includes people who are inconclusive. Atheism is a conclusion on the matter. It is a belief. Atheism is not an absence or lack of a belief. Atheism doesn't not include everybody that simply doesn't believe in God. That is non-theism. Atheism has always and will always only include those who believe there is no God.

There is no such thing is positive/negative belief. Weak/strong. None of that pointless drivel is accepted in any scientific community, academic community, or anywhere normal people function. Those pointless concepts and kindergarten teriminology including the idea that atheism includes those who lack belief are a product of an internet meme that has no validity whatsoever.

 

[Enmos]

blabla blablablab. Atheism is a conclusion on the matter. It is a belief. Blabla blablablab.

No!

 

[Cris]

lixluke,

Definitions/adjustments of words are usually derived from their actual usage. And the English language is such that it is constantly changing as new ideas and updated ideas prevail.

In other words our behavior is not determined by what dictionaries say, but rather that dictionaries reflect our behavior.

It is fact that the term atheism is used seriously by many groups of people who hold different interpretations.

1. Belief that gods do not exist. (certainty).
2. Disbelief that gods exist. (scepticism).

Both are correct. Insisting that one group is wrong is as useful as asserting that red apples are the only true apples and that green apples should be banned.

Whatever variation of the label you choose does not alter the very real issue that theists make claims that all atheists find objectionable, and that is the real focus of all atheists. Let's not be distracted by theists who want to argue that atheists are just as stupid as theists for asserting something that cannot be proven, the end reult of which is that theists have admitted they are stupid for believing what they do.

 

[quadraphonics]

Good question. I think it is because then theists can accuse atheists of the same thing they are doing and then they can use atheist arguments against themselves.

I do get the sense that the people pushing these redefinitions think the result will be a great premise for skewering unbelievers. But I've yet to see any such argument compelling enough to warrant the effort in the first place.

I mean, even if they somehow succeeded in redefining atheism into something more narrow, the only result would be that their attacks on atheism would no longer apply to most atheists (who would have since been reclassified as agnostics or non-theists or skeptics or whatever). I suppose the assertion of the power to frame, or the division of some imagined bloc of enemies, must be the gratifying element here?

Or is it simply that their pet insults apply strictly to strong atheists, and they get frustrated with deflections from weak atheists?

 

[lixluke]

Definitions/adjustments of words are usually derived from their actual usage. And the English language is such that it is constantly changing as new ideas and updated ideas prevail.

The redefinition is not and will not prevail. A disbelief is a claim that something is false. Atheism as defined by any dictionary states that there is no diety. There is no practical purpose of changing the standard definition or in taking any kindergarten terminology seriously. It is furthermore incorrect to deem individuals who are inconclusive as atheists. To deem somebody who is inconclusive as atheist not only is not proper/common usage, it serves no purpose. Then to go even further to implement unecessary terminology that has no linguistic relevance simiply should not be taken seriously. Agnosticism is a form of skepticism. Atheism is not. Atheism deems the existence of God to be false. You might not agree that there is no God, but that doesn't change what atheism is about. Inconclusion is not Godlessness. Atheism is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A disbelief is a claim that something is false.

Wrong.

 

[quadraphonics]

The redefinition is not and will not prevail.

Ironic, given that you're among the faction working to redefine "atheism."

But probably accurate, as far as the "not prevail" part goes.

A disbelief is a claim that something is false.

How about an unbelief?

And a disbelief is exactly a lack of belief, by the way :]

Atheism as defined by any dictionary states that there is no diety.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy gives the following definition for "atheism:"

"Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."

There is no practical purpose of changing the standard definition or in taking any kindergarten terminology seriously.

Indeed.

It is furthermore incorrect to deem individuals who are inconclusive as atheists.

Not according to the dictionary definition of "atheism" I just supplied you.

Atheism deems the existence of God to be false.

"Atheism" doesn't "deem" anything. It's a catch-all term for the lack of theism. Individual atheists may well make such a determination, but they don't speak for anyone else, and that doesn't somehow disqualify everyone else.

Why do you pretend to go around dictating to atheists what they can and cannot think? They're perfectly capable of defining their own beliefs.

 

[swarm]

Atheism is

the position that there is no (such thing as) [too vague let's tighten it up] reason to believe in God. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.

So that's not a bad position. If you start there you won't go too far astray.

The controversy we've been having is whether or not is the only group who lacks a belief in god and just how far that lack extends.

 

[lixluke]

Where am I dictating anything to any atheists? I am clarifying what the term means. You are imposing more into it than that. I'm discussing common usage terminology. The rest can discuss all the other garbage.

A disbelief is not a lack of belief. Furthermore, Merriam-Webster does not define atheism as a lack of belief. Either way, it doesn't matter as there is no doubt that the term atheism is being used by a certain group of people to include those who are inconclusive on the matter. Regardless, it is not standard common usage for the term. Furthermore, it servers no purpose. Chris stated that it helps in arguments to broaden the usage of atheism. However, it is still pointless.

There are arguments for/against theism, atheism, skepticism including agnosticism, etc. There is no concern for individuals who consider the matter inconclusive, and do not abide by any of those. Calling those who are inconclusive 'atheists' is not different from calling them 'theists'. They are neither. And imposing atheism upon those who claim neither theism or atheism is not only absurd, it's abnormal.

A lack of theism is non-theism. Which properly describes anybody who does not abide by theism.

 

[lixluke]

the position that there is no (such thing as) [too vague let's tighten it up] reason to believe in God. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.

So that's not a bad position. If you start there you won't go too far astray.

The controversy we've been having is whether or not is the only group who lacks a belief in god and just how far that lack extends.

No. A lack of belief in God includes those who do not necessarily disbelieve in God. Those who have "no reason" to believe in God is not the issue in terms of definitions. You are imposing more into it than there is. Either God exists, God does not exist, or inconclusive. Atheism is not an inconclusive position. Those who consider the matter inconclusive lack both the belief and disbelif in God. They normally don't deem themselves atheists. Nobody operating within the confines of sanity deem them atheists.