Oh I love that book.
No. Atheism is a specific lack of theism, to wit: "Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."
Non-theist is the catch-all term.
Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
- Status
Oh I love that book.
No. Atheism is a specific lack of theism, to wit: "Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."
Non-theist is the catch-all term.
Beats me. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense to me. I gave up on pretend friends with magic powers about age 3. I can't fathom how an adult could even pretend to believe this crap.
But having done the search I can tell you there is no reasonable definition of god. Its all loops of absurd "properties" and other equally undefined fantasy terms.
Its really a form of institutional schizophrenia. True believers lack the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy and you can see the actual pathology emerge the more they "believe" until they start killing themselves and their kids and our society.
In every post you make in this thread, you are dictating what the term "atheist" must mean.
By imposing your specific definition, regardless of what any actual atheists have to say about the matter, or any support at all beyond your own assertions.
No you aren't. You're employing the phrase "common usage," but without any substance. You are simply declaring that the common usage agrees with you.
That is exactly what a disbelief is. Try one of the dictionaries you claim to be so fond of.
Only if you insist that "disbelief" means "affirmative belief in the negative."
That "certain group" being essentially everyone who isn't personally invested in narrowing the standard definition of "atheism."
Sure it is. You can keep saying it's not, but you can no more dictate to everyone what "standard common usage" is than you can dictate to atheists what they do and do not believe.
Using the correct, accepted definition of a term is pointless?
One has to wonder what your point could be, then...
Sure it is. The latter is clearly incorrect, since these people lack theism.
There's nothing to be imposed. It's simply a factual description of their beliefs: literally, "without theism."
The term "non-theism" does not exist in common standard usage. It does not appear in the OED, or Mirriam-Webster, etc. I had never heard of it until this thread.
And it's interesting that you'd suggest as an alternative to "atheism" a word constructed by swapping the prefix for an equivalent one.
And it's further interesting that the only noteable online source for a definition of "non-theism" (Wikipedia), includes the following:
"Non-theism has various types. "Strong atheism" is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed "weakly atheistic", or more specifically implicitly atheist. Other, more qualified types of nontheism are often known as agnosticism, or more specifically explicit atheism."
Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference here.
To some, perhaps. But "non-theist" is not a widely accepted or used term in the first place, so I think you're inflating its relevance here.
Perhaps it would help if you consider the difference between a- and non-
non- and a- Etymology
Prefix
non-
From Latin non, from Old Latin noenu, noenum, from neoenum (“‘not one’”). See none.
1. Used in the sense of not, to negate the meaning of the word to which it is prefixed.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-
a-
From Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) (ἀν- (an-) immediately preceding a vowel).
1. Forming words denoting absence or lack, e.g. abyss, amoral, usually with stems beginning with consonants.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-
So non = not; atheism = without
Granted there is definite over lap, but not and without are not direct synonyms.
Sure, but perhaps you could provide an example in this particular case?
How would we recognize a non-theist who is not an atheist?
Happy to clear that up for you.
Its a rhetorical ploy. The theists think if they can get you to make a statement of positive belief they can say "prove it," which of course either can't be done or comes across as terribly weak since "god" is a fantasy with a myriad of useless definitions; and therefore god exists!
Yes I know it doesn't make sense or work that way, but once you buy the big lie of god, its turtles all the way down.
True.
Not according to actual atheists.
So what do you propose to call people who just lack a belief in god and identify themselves as atheists, because that is most the atheists I know.
Actually non theists are literally any one who is not a theist for whatever reason. Atheists specifically lack belief in god as their reason.
Bullshit. Nuanced positions generate papers and conferences.
"They" aren't all theists you know.
I see no problem in narrowing the definition so that is doesn't include non atheists.
No it just means I think you are a nutcase.
This, unfortunately, is the crux of the matter. I've somewhat given up on even getting into such discussion because the actual goal - the overall intention - is to attempt to make 'atheism' look as pathetic as 'theism'.
I used to debate the issue constantly - so much more so than I ever should have done - and have since just been happy to accept either statement that the theist seems more than happy to dump on you.
When the theist says I am, what many would refer to as, a "strong atheist", I accept it because it doesn't actually change anything. If they mention burden of proof, it hasn't changed from them having it.
For starters it is simply impossible to disprove the existence of a non-existent entity - be it gods or Santa Claus. All we have are reasons to believe it does and reasons to believe it doesn't and it all comes down to the perceived worth of those reasons. I'm sure all of us - regardless to whether 'weak atheist' or 'strong atheist' have many reasons to not believe in gods - we do it with Zeus all the time, why not with Yahweh or Jesus or any other imaginable god? Why are we walking tentatively? Why are we so quick to say that we're not saying it's all cobblers? It seems to me that it's merely to save offending the theist or to save oneself from the notion that all of a sudden you seemingly have some burden of proof. You don't, you never have, you never can.
Here's a true story: This afternoon I flew to Jupiter and met the Jupiterians who are a bunch of seven foot nomadic hot blonde chicks that were in need of a good porking - so I porked them all and flew home.
You cannot disprove it - in the exact same manner you cannot disprove gods or invisible banjo playing frogs but that is not an argument to suggesting that one need claim that they are 'weak' to the claim. If life worked that way it would be a mess.
We all find it perfectly sufficient and normal to be 'strong' with regards to all of those entities that have no good reason whatsoever to believe in. If someone mentions this invisible banjo playing frog, you'd be as 'strong' as it can get - whilst recognising that there is no onus on you whatsoever - even though you couldn't ever prove it doesn't exist. I, (wont speak for the rest of you), see "no good reason whatsoever" to believe in gods as real existing entities and hence declare that they don't exist.
There's no onus on you at all - gods are ridiculous and banjo playing frogs are ridiculous. If you don't believe in them, you don't believe in them - distinctions about how you don't believe in them are somewhat pointless in my opinion.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines "atheism":
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).
Here is the OED's definition of "agnostic":
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
lixluke,
1. Gods either exist or they do not exist. There can be no middle ground. Unless you want to perversely invent the idea of half-gods.
2. There is no consensus on how to determine whether gods exist or not. The topic becomes essentially one of opinions. The opinions vary by degress from very strongly in favor to very strongly against, and of course all varying flavors in between.
The status quo is to just use two labels to describe all opinions, theism or atheism. You are insisting that the label atheism only be applied to one extreme end of the scale. That is not how the majority of atheists see it.
You have confused two perspectives.
1. Gods either exist or they do not exist. There can be no middle ground. Unless you want to perversely invent the idea of half-gods.
2. There is no consensus on how to determine whether gods exist or not. The topic becomes essentially one of opinions. The opinions vary by degress from very strongly in favor to very strongly against, and of course all varying flavors in between.
The status quo is to just use two labels to describe all opinions, theism or atheism. You are insisting that the label atheism only be applied to one extreme end of the scale. That is not how the majority of atheists see it.
Actually not at all because Huxley did not refer to ontology but epistemology. Even if we forget his actual statement and consider it as 'don't know/can't know', we notice that it is epistemological - not ontological. Kindly learn to distinguish the difference before making such statements.
"I don't know if a god exists or not".
Do I believe one does or don't I? Unfortunately the above statement, (epi), has nothing to say with regards to (ont). In fact, I'm sure you know of some people that "don't know"/"are unsure" if a god exists or not but believe one does anyway, (epi and ont). Kindly don't confuse the two as being mutually exclusive.
Yeah, which is what I said. When there are three responses to a question, Yes, No and I don't know, guess which one is the middle ground.
Neither because neither "yes" nor "no" are saying that they do know. They are stating belief, not knowledge, (ont/epi).
I "don't know" that there aren't intelligent creatures hiding on mars but I believe there are no intelligent creatures hiding on mars, (it's no of consequence why I believe there aren't).
As you'll notice, they're completely separate things. A claim to knowledge or no knowledge does not answer or reflect upon a position of belief or no belief.
The fact is that the "response to the question" only actually has two positions: Yes I believe that proposition or no, I do not believe that proposition. You either believe it is true or you do not believe it is true.
Do either imply that you have knowledge? Of course not, they're entirely different questions. Think about it before responding.
Me: Is it going to rain today?
One: Yes
Two: No
Three: I don't know
Irrelevant as to belief or knowledge.
Ok, think of man one and two... Do either of them know? Actually they don't. In saying, all three people - 1, 2 and 3 are in fact saying "I don't know" - which is an inevitable consequence of the fact that none of them actually know whether it is going to rain or not.
The man that says "I don't know", is simply answering (epi) without paying any attention whatsoever to (ont) - which still exists regardless to (epi). If you said to that same man: "Look dude, what do you think", he'd undoubtedly look skyward, lick his thumb and hold it outwards and so on and give you the answer you actually seek. The "I don't know", is simple laziness.
You must be aware of this yourself. I'm sure there's times you've turned around to your husband, asked him a question and he's said "oh, I don't know" - with you knowing that he actually does have an answer but can't be bothered explaining it.
So, what have we learnt?
We have learnt that "I don't know" actually applies to all 3, (unless one of them somehow mysteriously actually knows what the weather is going to do - none of which is implicit in the belief or statement that it's going to rain). Half the time I tell my wife it's going to rain I am actually wrong and it doesn't - that's not to suggest that I ever knew what it was going to do only a belief, (typically formed by looking perhaps at the utter absence of clouds).
A refusal to give an ontological position is not an argument that there isn't one. None of us "know", (with regards to most things - hell, you don't even know if I have two legs and two arms, for all you know I could have 37 of both). Knowledge or lack thereof is of no relevance to ontological position which exists regardless to epistemological position.
- Status