Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[swarm]

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.

Ah but there is also: the proposition is undefined and/or incoherent. Many agnostics can't choose ontological sides because of this. They feel doing so would be dishonest without first determining the epistemological question. (Personally I just haven't a clue what "god" is supposed to actually mean.)

Further since we are dealing with humans there is: your question fails to elicit a response from me. It just isn't important enough to care about and form a belief.

Finally there is: belief is irrelevant to existential questions. Taking an ontological stance about an existential question is a complete and utter waste of time. Its completely futile and irrelevant. Did I mention irrelevant? How about futile? Disbelieve a rock an it will rockily ignore you. Believe you have the hope diamond in your pocket as hard as you please and it still won't be there. Belief just doesn't matter so who cares?

So basically its a simple yes or no question only if you ignore every one else who has a non yes or no response, which seems a bit disingenuous.

 

[swarm]

The "I don't know", is simple laziness.

Or he is simply honest and doesn't know. The ontological position isn't necessary and it, as you point out, adds no value to the discussion.

1) I don't know but I'm saying yes for no good reason.
2) I don't know but I'm saying no for no good reason.
1) I just don't know and that actually is the limit of what I can honestly say.

 

[swarm]

Theists don't ask questions, they make assertions that the atheists find unbelievable. Your example isn't appropriate.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Woot!

 

[swarm]

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[34], Michael Martin[25], and William L. Rowe[35] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Yes except they are no more in a position to absorb other non theists than you are and are equally incorrect in assigning the atheist position to non theists who are non atheists as well.

Also Flew has lost the courage of his conviction and is now a deist last I heard.

 

[(Q)]

Cris, you have more than enough material here for a forum standard. Debating with the theists who haven't a clue is really a waste of time, they'll never get it.

Best to probably close the thread and put up the standard in a sticky.

 

[lixluke]

Actually, those who claim atheism are atheists pretending that they are inconclusive.

Is there such thing as God?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. Beats me.

Those who are #3 are just as much atheists as they are theists. However, people calling themselves atheists like to go around claiming #3, when in fact, they really abide by #1. What for? You go around claimimg that you're unsure of whether or not there is a God, then you call yourself atheists which, in normal society, implies that you're really #1. Even if you claim you don't know, the connotation of calling yourself atheist speaks for itself.

 

[(Q)]

Actually, those who claim aunicornism are anicornists pretending that they are inconclusive.

Is there such thing as a unicorn?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. Beats me.

Those who are #3 are just as much aunicornists as they are unicornists. However, people calling themselves aunicornists like to go around claiming #3, when in fact, they really abide by #1. What for? You go around claimimg that you're unsure of whether or not there is unicorns, then you call yourself aunicornist which, in normal society, implies that you're really #1. Even if you claim you don't know, the connotation of calling yourself anicornist speaks for itself.

Brilliant logic. Lix.

 

[swarm]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference here.

That's ok. A lot of atheists don't an then are baffled when people who do understand the difference refuse to join the atheist band wagon.

First let's just establish that their are people who are educated in matters relevant to the question of theism/atheism, and, who refuse to accept either label as being relevant to them, like say me.

Now there are fundamentally two approaches here.

The religious approach is you assert the authority of your dogma and declare the anomalous data null and void, like Sarkus is trying to do.

Or, the rational approach which is to alter or adapt your definition to account for all the available data, which I have been trying to do. Because frankly the definition of atheist should include atheists, but it should not include non atheists and the assumption that there are only atheists and theists is absurd and I stand as an example of neither.

Now I'm not sold on my definition, it just seems to account for the available data better than anything else so far offered. If you have a better one, then by all means.

Now as for seeing the difference....

So far I've mentioned: Buddhists, apathists, agnostics, and animists

To capture some salient points...

"Do you hold a belief in gods or not?"

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

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.

We aren't looking for popularity. If we were we would use the very popular theist definition of atheist.

We are striving for a good definition and non-theist is helpful in the process, as is non-atheist.

 

[Sarkus]

"Do you hold a belief in gods or not?"

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

And in each of these answers is the implicit "no - I do not hold a belief in gods." This is even why some have coined the terms implied atheism and explicit atheism - the latter being a conscious rejection of the concepts, the former being without this conscious rejection.
You fail to see this implied atheism in these epistemological positions, and fair enough, if they don't wish to use the label of atheism as it is too broad and doesn't capture the nuance of their philosophical position then no problem - but as I have stated before, usage of a label and applicability are two different matters.

And then if you look at atheism merely from a practical point of view - atheism is to live your life absent of gods (hence godless as it originally meant)... which would suggest that anyone, for whatever reason, who lived their lives as though gods did not exist would be atheist.

But for some reason you wish atheism not to be such an encompassing term, and instead wish to split it up based on non-ontological positions (e.g. epistemological).

 

[swarm]

And in each of these answers is the implicit "no - I do not hold a belief in gods."

Nope.

This is even why some have coined the terms implied atheism and explicit atheism

I am explicitly denying atheism.

atheism is to live your life absent of gods

So do I need a-unicornism to live my life free from unicorns?

I guess you are an a-Qergist and an a-Wirtist and an a-Dwetist ...

 

[swarm]

No, atheism is not taking the theist position.

Some of those who don't take the theist position are atheists, but not all people who don't take the theist position are atheists.

Look I know you guys are desperate for members but this isn't the way to get them.

 

[swarm]

No, I am ...

What you are doing is pretending you are the authoritative source of atheist dogma and the your offering cannot dare be questioned no matter how lousy a definition it actually is.

 

[Enmos]

Some of those who don't take the theist position are atheists, but not all people who don't take the theist position are atheists.

Look I know you guys are desperate for members but this isn't the way to get them.

Desperate for members ? lol
If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. It's as simple as that.

 

[lixluke]

No it's not that simple because those who don't believe there is no God are not atheists. Furthermore, there is no standard terminology for unicornism or aunicornism other than slang. Why not just call anybody who doesn't believe there is no God theist? It's the no more absurd than referring to them as atheists. All the added garbage about atheism is a product of the rediculous doctrine propagated by infedelsorg website that wants to make a religion out of atheism. Nobody in the real world takes that nonsense seriously.

 

[Pete]

If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. It's as simple as that.

Not in common parlance. Nobody would say that a rock an atheist, and very few would say a baby is an atheist. Furthermore, the only people who do suggest that babies are atheists are engaged in this very discussion, and generally insisting that babies are atheists.

My advice: It's just words. Don't be a zealot.

 

[iceaura]

Not in common parlance. Nobody would say that a rock an atheist, and very few would say a baby is an atheist. Furthermore, the only people who do suggest that babies are atheists are engaged in this very discussion, and generally insisting that babies are atheists.

But many people - of those who even have a "common parlance" in this arena - would say that a rock or a baby might be atheistic, rather than using the specialized theist vocabulary of "an atheist". (And a baby might be theistic, eh? What is Mother, to a baby?).

The term was originally a means of wrong-footing unbelievers, as a power ploy, after all. It doesn't cover the bases, in an honest discussion.

So its better to think everyone is born evil and so you should go liberate them and re-educate them? Rather than believe everyone is born good and doesn't need liberation but education?

In practice, rather than principle, "liberation" and "education" are hard to distinguish - the employment of weaponry being common to both.

And the description of Christianity there is false - original sin is not a universal belief among Christians, and in particular not among the most diligently "liberating" factions. The original sinners tend to do a lot of "educating" at weapon-point, in historical event.

 

[Cris]

(Q),

Yup nearly there.

 

[Sarkus]

What you are doing is pretending you are the authoritative source of atheist dogma and the your offering cannot dare be questioned no matter how lousy a definition it actually is.

Rubbish - I am merely using the definition as proposed in the OP.
You have yet to explain why that definition is incorrect other than merely to say "it is not correct because it doesn't fit with my definition".

You have singularly failed to show why the definition as per the OP is invalid other than to give examples of philosophies that fall outside of atheism under your definition / understanding - as though you are the authority on the matter.

All you have done is started throwing toys out of your pram.

There is no debate here - just you shouting "Mine is right! Yours is wrong!"

 

[Cris]

Thread closed. Definitions posted as a sticky thread.