The evidence are the psychopaths all over the internet propgating infedel's definition of atheism as an accepted legitimate use for the term outside of kindergarten. Or do you not think this phenomenon which has been going on for years is nonexistent?
Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
Hmm, your own definition of psychopath as well.
And the evidence that "infedel" (whatever THAT is) started this definition is...?
Call atheism what you like. Whether or not it's a religion does not change the fact that they deny the existence of a god. It doesn't change much to say it is a religion.
It's not a religion because there are no articles of faith.
its just a VERY LAME attempt by theists to discredit atheism because they have nothing better.
There is no debate on the fact that they are the source of the terminology that propagated throughout the internet. Then to Wikipedia, then even more. Regardless, there is no credibility to the definitions laid out by infidels outside of kindergarten.
Certainly there is.
So far all we have is your assertion, no evidence though.
What you should have said (to make that statement correct) is that YOU give no credence to those definitions.
Not just me, but the anybody who has graduated kindergarten gives no credit to infedel's terminology.
Wrong again.
As evidenced on this thread.
And, just for your information, anyone who really had "graduated kindergarten" would probably also be able to spell "infidel" correctly.
I prolly still don't have it but...
Um... so you're saying that being an atheist is defined by the person being one? That theres not a conclusive way to describe it but everyone has their own opinion and thats what they believe right?
Um... so you're saying that being an atheist is defined by the person being one? That theres not a conclusive way to describe it but everyone has their own opinion and thats what they believe right?
Not really.
Definitions have been provided.
Lixluke (not being an atheist) has a vested interest in *cough* "proving" (for some obscure reason) that atheism is a belief rather than lack of one.
Atheism is nothing more than a term which is used in discussion under a commonly accepted standard. That regardless what it is you want to call yourself, when using the term atheism, by standard usage, it is meant to refer to the belief that there is no diety.
What is happening is that there are those who simply don't know whether or not God exists. Most people consider these individuals to be agnostics even though they don't literally fall under agnosticism. Meanwhile, others are trying to label these people as atheists. They lack that belief that there is a God and they lack the belief that there isn't a God. Thus, they are neither theist or atheist.
Atheism can be lack of belief, but such people usually wouldn't apply the term to themselves. Atheism usually means people that actively disbelieve religion (particularly theistic or supernatural beliefs).
I think, lixluke, that you're confusing people who have a position on the existence of deities with those who do not.
Those who have devoted some thought to the matter may call themselves atheist or theist or agnostic. Those who have never considered the question can't really be labelled in any way other than as holding no view at all.
What you seem to be trying to do is lump atheists and those who have no view into a single category that you call "nontheists".
Those who have devoted some thought to the matter may call themselves atheist or theist or agnostic. Those who have never considered the question can't really be labelled in any way other than as holding no view at all.
What you seem to be trying to do is lump atheists and those who have no view into a single category that you call "nontheists".
This is not what I'm doing. Let's start with a less literal more shallow understanding of terminology. When asked what religion somebody is, somebody might say:
1. Atheist because I don't believe in God.
2. Agnostic because I don't know.
Well literally, speaking what both of them are saying is:
1. I have concluded that there is no God.
2. I have not arrived on any conclusion on the matter.
In this case, 1 is actually an atheist while 2 is not actually an agnostic. All that I'm saying is that Atheism, in proper usage, describes only those who say that there is no God. Those who abide by #2 cannot, in proper usage, be labeled atheism. Nor do they typically label themselves under atheism. Atheism is specifically meant to imply the viewpoint that there is no God.
Does #2 have a lack of belief in God? Yes. Is #2 an atheist? In proper usage of the term, no. #2 is not atheist, and not necessarily agnostic.
But most atheists will tell you they haven't concluded there is no God. They have concluded that the probability that there is a God is so low that to believe in God makes no sense. i.e. they have concluded that they do not believe there is a god. What they have not concluded (well, most of them) is that they believe there is no God.
What can be more proper usage than how atheists actually describe themselves?
No. #2 has formed no conclusion as to whether God exists or not. If you're undecided, you don't have a belief either way. You sit on the fence.
Part of the problem is that there's a continuum at work here and you're trying to draw sharp lines.
What would you call somebody who thought there was a 10% chance that God exists? What about a 60% chance? What about a 0.01% chance?
Scaramouche
Registered Member
I have this crazy-arse theory that if you really believe in some divine power or principle or cause or whatever, getting the spelling correct just isn't that big a part of it.
#2 who is on the fence lacks the belief that there is a deity. But #2 is not an atheist.
There is no such thing as "the best usage being what an atheist chooses to describe himself". Atheist is a label to describe somebody with a particular belief. It is not some default person claiming he is atheist, and then choosing a description for himself. Anybody can call themselves whatever the hell they want. That is not the point. The point is historical standard usage.
In the workings of knowldege, there is something called the threshold of certainty. It is beyond this threshold, that somebody has come to the conclusion on a matter. X is true. Thus, the person states "I know X is true" when he has gone beyond a threshold of certainty in a matter. Does this mean that the person is going to bet his testicles on it in a gamble? Not necessarily.
So I might conclude that I have an apple in my hand. I can say I have passed the threshold of certainty, and know I definitely have an apple in my hand. If there is no apple in my hand, one must prove me otherwise.
The term atheism, by standard, describes people who, at whatever level of certainty they may be, are claiming that there is no God. In such as case, they live as if there was no diety unless proven otherwise. This is an atheist.
One who simply lacks the belief in a deity could be an atheist as described above, but isn't necessarily one. Because those who state they don't know either way lack the belief, but aren't actually atheists. Typically, they may incorrectly be referred to as agnostics. Those who abide by infidel's terminology label them as weak atheists. The real question is, why, if you aren't actually an atheist according to standard usage of the term, would somebody in this case even want to refer to themselves as an atheist? It's as pointless as wanting to refer to yourself as a theist.
So what happens when somebody claims that they don't know whether or not there is a diety, but are pretty sure there isn't one? The answer is that it doesn't matter. The real question is where do they stand on their threshold of certainty?
1. Are they at a level of certainty where they pretty much consider the universe to be without any diety? Then they are atheist.
2. Or are they at a level where they really don't know either way. Then, they aren't atheist, and should have no reason to even want to be called one. Nor should we take people seriously who want to group them under atheism using poorly concocted terms such as "weak-atheism" and "strong-atheism". And even going further as to proclaim agnostics as a type of atheist.
When you call yourself an atheist, you're basically telling the public that you believe there is no diety. You may not necessarily bet your left testicle on it. But that's how you live your life. No God. No religion. Atheist.
There is no such thing as "the best usage being what an atheist chooses to describe himself". Atheist is a label to describe somebody with a particular belief. It is not some default person claiming he is atheist, and then choosing a description for himself. Anybody can call themselves whatever the hell they want. That is not the point. The point is historical standard usage.
In the workings of knowldege, there is something called the threshold of certainty. It is beyond this threshold, that somebody has come to the conclusion on a matter. X is true. Thus, the person states "I know X is true" when he has gone beyond a threshold of certainty in a matter. Does this mean that the person is going to bet his testicles on it in a gamble? Not necessarily.
So I might conclude that I have an apple in my hand. I can say I have passed the threshold of certainty, and know I definitely have an apple in my hand. If there is no apple in my hand, one must prove me otherwise.
The term atheism, by standard, describes people who, at whatever level of certainty they may be, are claiming that there is no God. In such as case, they live as if there was no diety unless proven otherwise. This is an atheist.
One who simply lacks the belief in a deity could be an atheist as described above, but isn't necessarily one. Because those who state they don't know either way lack the belief, but aren't actually atheists. Typically, they may incorrectly be referred to as agnostics. Those who abide by infidel's terminology label them as weak atheists. The real question is, why, if you aren't actually an atheist according to standard usage of the term, would somebody in this case even want to refer to themselves as an atheist? It's as pointless as wanting to refer to yourself as a theist.
So what happens when somebody claims that they don't know whether or not there is a diety, but are pretty sure there isn't one? The answer is that it doesn't matter. The real question is where do they stand on their threshold of certainty?
1. Are they at a level of certainty where they pretty much consider the universe to be without any diety? Then they are atheist.
2. Or are they at a level where they really don't know either way. Then, they aren't atheist, and should have no reason to even want to be called one. Nor should we take people seriously who want to group them under atheism using poorly concocted terms such as "weak-atheism" and "strong-atheism". And even going further as to proclaim agnostics as a type of atheist.
When you call yourself an atheist, you're basically telling the public that you believe there is no diety. You may not necessarily bet your left testicle on it. But that's how you live your life. No God. No religion. Atheist.
Last edited:
But we all know this semantic bilge is about drawing a false equivalence by trying to portray an absence of a religion as a religion.
Nobody has to draw anything. Atheism does a perfectly fine job at portraying itself as a religion. The issue here is people who want to be referred to as "atheist" but don't want to claim that they "believe" something that has no known evidential standard of justification.
Basically, "I want to be acknowledged as an atheist, but I don't want to be considered as believing there is no diety. Therefore, I'm going to create a website with brand new terminology just to make me feel better regardless how irrational my 'feelings' are.