Weak Atheism. What a joke.

[Cris]

Yup - we are going round in circles again.

 

[Cris]

lol - dunno - let's ask lixlux.

 

[Pete]

Etymological arguments certainly are a hack, especially when they are incorrect.

The point is that atheist never meant "not theist", until people began using incorrect etymological arguments to push a barrow and declare that "babies are atheists".

But like I said, labels really just don't matter.

"Bright" is interesting... A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements (www.the-brights.net).

Does that mean that a bright believes that the world contains no supernatural or mystical elements, or does it only mean that a bright does not maintain an active positive belief in such things?

How does "worldview" differ from "beliefs"?

 

[Pete]

Yes, I'm replying to myself. I must be starved for intelligent discussion.

Does that mean that a bright believes that the world contains no supernatural or mystical elements, or does it only mean that a bright does not maintain an active positive belief in such things?

It looks like the second applies, and that "worldview" is supposed to mean "beliefs in practice", or something similar.
bright clarified:

The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on. There are any of a number of self-identity labels they might apply to themselves. No label at all need apply...just plain "nonreligious" or "uninterested in religion" without any real consideration beyond that might be how a person is seeing himself/herself.

The network’s umbrella covers a startling spectrum of beliefs. Besides those who self-identify as atheists, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists, skeptics, etc., the network includes Ethical Culturalists, Pantheists, Scientific Methodists, Buddhists, Yogis, Unitarians, and a gamut of folks (Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians) who maintain their religion’s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism.​

 

[Raithere]

Etymological arguments certainly are a hack, especially when they are incorrect.

The point is that atheist never meant "not theist", until people began using incorrect etymological arguments to push a barrow and declare that "babies are atheists".

My point is that the definition of a word changes with it's use.

Therefore, such a statement as "babies are atheists" is indeed correct as the term in common parlance is disbelief whatever the etymology is:

Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: th iz m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist (from Greek atheos godless, not believing in the existence of gods, from a- 2a- + theos god) + -isme -ism -- more at THE-
1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

Or we could all just call ourselves theists, because I don't think many people disbelieve in the shining Sun. After all, that's what a theist really is.

~Raithere

 

[SkinWalker]

Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

With regard to your etymology of the suffix "-ism," I'd like to see a reference to that. In English language, going back as far as the 16th century, "-ism" has been added to action words to create nouns or nouns to express the conduct or actions of a person or class of persons, as with heroism. Would you suggest that one who engages in heroism believes in being a hero? Perhaps, but none of the best ones do.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible,

There is no re-definition. There is only the most parsimonious and basic one: without god. That definition includes militant atheists, casual atheists, reformed theists, my 5 year-old daughter, and those that could really give two shits about superstitions like other people's gods.

But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.

Call it what you will, but theism is not a default state of being. It is an assertion; a claim made by the superstitious. And until you've been indoctrinated in a superstition, whether it be throwing salt over your shoulder or believing in a god, you are without belief in it. Babies are atheists. They are without gods.

Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

Indeed.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheism is not a lack of belief...

There might be three granularities of atheist.

1) I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) exists' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) does not exist'.

2) I accept the assertion that 'God(s) (X) does not exist' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) (!X) exists' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) (!X) does not exist'.

3) I accept the assertion that 'God(s) does not exist'.

Where 1) is WEAK ATHEISM, 2) is FIRM ATHEISM *heh*, and 3) is STRONG ATHEISM. The most important part to understand is that no matter how you slice and dice it, to an ATHEIST the assertion 'God exists' is not accepted is truth.

 

[Pete]

Therefore, such a statement as "babies are atheists" is indeed correct as the term in common parlance is disbelief whatever the etymology is:

According to the same dictionary, disbelief means "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue".
Babies do not maintain a disbelief in gods, therefore babies are not atheists. This reflects common parlance - It is not common parlance to include babies under the umbrella of atheism.

With regard to your etymology of the suffix "-ism," I'd like to see a reference to that. In English language, going back as far as the 16th century, "-ism" has been added to action words to create nouns or nouns to express the conduct or actions of a person or class of persons, as with heroism. Would you suggest that one who engages in heroism believes in being a hero? Perhaps, but none of the best ones do.

You have a point. I was going by evilbible.com, but Bartleby says that: The suffix -ism is a noun suffix. That is, when added to words or word roots, -ism forms nouns. It comes from the Greek noun suffix -ismos and means roughly “the act, state, or theory of.”. There is clearly wiggle room in such a broad meaning for the phrase. Is it the state of godlessness, the theory of godlessness, the act of godlessness, or what?

There is no re-definition. There is only the most parsimonious and basic one: without god. That definition includes militant atheists, casual atheists, reformed theists, my 5 year-old daughter, and those that could really give two shits about superstitions like other people's gods.

The problem is that dictionaries and common usage don't agree with your preferred definition.

Call it what you will, but theism is not a default state of being.

Of course. Babies are not theists, any more than they are marxists, capitalists, or atheists.

 

[Pete]

There might be three granularities of atheist.

There are certainly many granularities of belief. The question is which ones are appropriately labelled by the word "atheist". Dictionary and common usage suggests that not being a theist isn't enough... but that usage may change, of course.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There are certainly many granularities of belief. The question is which ones are appropriately labelled by the word "atheist". Dictionary and common usage suggests that not being a theist isn't enough... but that usage may change, of course.

Take the commonality for all variants for people whom identify with Atheism. They don't accept that the assertion 'God(s) exist' is true.

 

[Raithere]

According to the same dictionary, disbelief means "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue".
Babies do not maintain a disbelief in gods, therefore babies are not atheists. This reflects common parlance - It is not common parlance to include babies under the umbrella of atheism.

Argument for the sake of argument.

You're presuming disbelief must be active. One may may simply say that babies do not believe in god. What is someone who does not believe in god if not an athiest?

~Raithere

 

[Pete]

You're presuming disbelief must be active.

No, the dictionary you cited declares that disbelief is active.

One may may simply say that babies do not believe in god. What is someone who does not believe in god if not an athiest?

Someone who does not believe in god is someone who does not believe in god. They don't need to be labelled, and there is no set label for such a person.

 

[Pete]

Take the commonality for all variants for people whom identify with Atheism. They don't accept that the assertion 'God(s) exist' is true.

I see what you mean. But that implies that "atheist" means "someone who identifies with atheism", and recognizes that there are different specific beliefs for those people.

But how do you tell whether someone who does not explicitly identify with atheism is an atheist or not? Is a newborn baby an atheist?

 

[lixluke]

EvilBible.com:

...some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.​

This is called mickeymouse Atheism. All these mickeymouse terms like weak/strong/atheistagnostic etc are mickeymouseterms.

Your "definitions" ended up with a double negative and number 2 came across ambiguously. Its just easier to reject your definitions and stick to the real ones.

This is totally ridiculous.
You cannot say it is easier to just stick to the “real” ones when the debate is about what the real definition of atheism is.
How would you objectively format both perspectives of the debate?
Or do you simply refuse to acknowledge anybody has any other perspective, and therefore there is no debate?

It is not a double negative.
Definition 1: Atheism = Belief that God definitely does not exist. = A disbelief that God exists. = A denial of the existence of God.
Definition 2: Atheism = Absence of any belief in God. = A disbelief that God exists. = A denial of the existence of God.

I have no idea what you're getting at here but for the sake of argument, let's suppose I say yes. Then what?

Then, it can establish both sides of the debate.


ATHEISM DEBATE
One side believes that terms [‘Atheism’, ‘disbelief’, ‘denial’, ‘without’] originally refer to the belief in the complete absence of the existence of God. (D1)
One side believes that terms [‘Atheism’, ‘disbelief’, ‘denial’, ‘without’] originally refer to the absence of belief in the existence of God. (D2)

It must follow:
(Anything can be labeled anything. What is being discussed in the original intention of the term atheism.)

D2 considers agnostics, and many other types of beliefs/nonbeliefs that do not acknowledge the existence of God to be atheist. Agnosticism is a type of atheism.
Thereby acknowledging terms such as agnostic atheist. Strong Atheism, Weak Atheism, etc are terms taken seriously to define various forms of atheism.
Atheism by D1 would be defined by D2 atheism as “Strong Atheism”.

D1 does not accept such terms as atheist agnostic, weak atheism, strong atheism, etc as valid as they play no part in the D1 definition. An agnostic as defined by D1 is in no way an atheist. D1 does not define people that have not been exposed to the proposition of God as atheists. Many of those who abide by D1 reject the D2 terms as invalid.


Regarding the proposition: God does exist.
Pro: True. God definitely does exist.
Con: False. God definitely does not exist.
Abstain. I refuse to make either definite claim.
Present. I require more information before making either claim.


NOTE:
Many are under the impression that positions can never be changed. One simply has a pro position or con position, and that is what they stand by for the rest of their life. This would invalidate the point of any discussion. There is no point in discussing anything to the opposing position under the assumption that it is impossible for the opposing position to change their position. There is no such thing as a position in any circumstance anywhere that is absolutely locked. Any position I stand by simply means that I disagree to the opposing unless valid proof is provided that my basis for the position is flawed. Thereby, I would have no logical choice but to denounce my current position, and take the opposing position.

Regarding atheism and theism, many people regard these as absolutes that cannot be changed. If you have the willingness to change, it means you are something else. Wrong. The pro and con positions of the above debate simply mean that you have enough information to take your position, and defend it as flawless. This does not mean that you do not welcome any opposing arguments that would render your position as flawed.


Regarding the above proposition:
D1 considers Atheism to be the con position.
D2 considers Atheism to be any of the other positions other than the pro.


DISBELIEF/DENIAL/WITHOUT
D1 considers disbelief/denial/without to be an active rejection. A disbelief means that the proposition is false.

D2 considers disbelief/denial/without to be a lack of belief. A disbelief simply means that you do not believe in the pro, you deny the pro, but it does not mean that you believe the proposition is definitely false.


ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF D2
I believe Jesus is God. I do not believe that Zeus and other geek deities are real. I believe they are nothing more than geek mythology.
D1 considers this individual to be a Theist.
D2 in a certain perspective considers this individual to be a Theist and an Atheist subject to whatever deity. D2 by this perspective purports that everybody on the planet is atheist in one way or another.


PROBLEMS WITH D2 (Consider the following as a whole.)
1. “A” in atheism can be interpreted to be atheism as defined by D2. However, this was never the original intention for the word atheism. It was originally intended to describe those that deny the existence of God. D2 was not the original intention, but more of a justification to consider atheism to be the denial of the belief in the existence of God.

2. D2 opens up all kinds of other positions and non-positions to fall under atheism. It is an imposition of the label “atheism” on those that do not claim the Con position. I may consider myself an agnostic independent of any label of atheism as defined by D1. D2 automatically places me under atheism. It places little babies, and other people that have never taken an active position in the matter to be labeled as atheists. D1 however, does not label anybody atheist unless they actively take the con position in the debate. According to D1, if you do not take the con position, you are not an atheist. If you do take the con position, it does not mean you are not open to opposing arguments that would render your position flawed. This is standard logic of debate.

3. D2 believers are often afraid to take the Con stance of atheism based on the belief that it means they are not open to flaws. The con position simply means that you believe that God does not exist. This belief is flawless. It would be ignorant to suggest that this position is not allowed to be open to scientific evidence that God does indeed exist thereby rendering their position flawed. As far as the Con position goes, God does not exist, and will never be proven to exist. All of a sudden, God appears, and announces himself. Scientists somehow agree that God was there after all. No problem, I change my position from con to pro. God does exist. This position is flawless, and will never be proven to not exist. The point is, there is no such position that is not open to arguments that might render it flawed.

4. Consider SW’s Zeus dilemma. There is no Zeus dilemma under D1. Assume for this purpose that D1 was the original interpretation, and redefined to D2. Such reinterpretation opens up nutrageous speculations. Under D2 Zeus dillema, it can easily be said that everybody is atheist. All of a sudden, atheism is a default which it never was originally intended to mean. If I consider D1 to be simple atheism, redefining it to D2 results in psychopaths such as SW. Atheism defined under D2 takes atheism completely out of hand. What was originally defined as “God definitely does not exist” is now open up to all kinds of crazytaxi terminology and has taken atheism into outer space. A clear thinking atheist starts using mickymouse terminology is no longer taken seriously, and considered to not be playing with a full deck.
D1 would not consider babies to be theists, any more than they are Marxists, capitalists, or atheists.

5. Real scientists, scholars, etc do not take mickymouse terminology seriously. Nor does any sensible individual give any credence to the D2 definition along with its mickymouse terminology. Unfortunately this religion section has succumb to the meme. The guidelines in this section actually take these mickymouse terminology of atheism seriously. Nobody with any sense gives any credence to this kindergarten garbage.

6. It is illogical to consider a disbelief/denial to be a lack of belief. By definition, a denial is an outright claim that the proposition is false. Same with a disbelief. It is an active position, and an outright rejection of the proposition. That the proposition is false. Con position. No other.

This is completely different from a “lack of belief” which takes no stand on whether or not the proposition is true or false.
Note Pete’s post:

According to the same dictionary, disbelief means "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue".
Babies do not maintain a disbelief in gods, therefore babies are not atheists. This reflects common parlance - It is not common parlance to include babies under the umbrella of atheism.

7. I submit my case: D1 is the original definition for Atheism. D2 is nothing more than a meme definition of atheism that has spread around namely through the internet. There is nothing wrong with considering D2 and its mickymouse terminology as their perspective. It is however, not real original atheism.

Hey let's all be brights and drop the term atheist.

This is exactly what a friend of mine did. He hates being called an atheist, so he defines himself as a bright. Another mickymouseterm like weak/strong atheism, but not an attempt to redefine the original meaning of atheism.

Brights are simply naturalists. They furthermore feel that naturalism has been marginalized in society. That is because nobody with a right mind could care less about these wack jobs.
Fortunately, a bright acknowledges D1 as the original definition of atheism.
The religion section however, uses mickymouseterms to define atheism. D2.
Real naturalists do not act like this. They are mickymouse naturalists.
Perhaps they should change their name to “Dims”. With a “wit” at the end. Dimwits. The new movement of gay naturalism.
“Look at me I’m a bright. Happy and gay as ever.”

There are 3 words to describe the bright movement: Totally bleeding wack.

The network’s umbrella covers a startling spectrum of beliefs. Besides those who self-identify as atheists, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists, skeptics, etc., the network includes Ethical Culturalists, Pantheists, Scientific Methodists, Buddhists, Yogis, Unitarians, and a gamut of folks (Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians) who maintain their religion’s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism.[/color][/indent]

Many people who refer to themselves as atheists fit well into the category of gay brights.
According to your site, there are brights that consider themselves D1 atheists.
Atheists according to D2 consider all brights to be atheists.


Many people seem to have something against labels. The term “label” itself is a loaded term, but good enough for this purpose. People label themselves, and are labeled by others. Rastafarians totally reject any and all isms, and refuse to acknowledge their belief as Rastafarianism. They purport that such labeling is harmful. There is nothing wrong with labels, or more accurately classification. All words in language are gaddam labels. There is no point in calling these isms labels. Sure they are labels. Just like all bloody words are labels. They are nothing more than words. Stop getting caught up and getting touchy about supposed “labeling” because it is meaningless.

There is no re-definition. There is only the most parsimonious and basic one: without god.

Right. The active position that the world is without God.

 

[Raithere]

No, the dictionary you cited declares that disbelief is active.

Fair enough.

Someone who does not believe in god is someone who does not believe in god. They don't need to be labelled, and there is no set label for such a person.

I have to disagree with not needing a label. There is clearly defined set here that according to our current definition has no identification. Further, according to definition, atheism is a subset of non-belief while theism is excluded.

Of course, we can categorize things in differing ways.

By assertion:

Or epistemological position:

~Raithere

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism doesn't have to be 100%. I'm an atheist, but my disbelief is not 100%. It is almost there, like 99.999%, the same way I disbelieve in elves or fairies. Close enough.

 

[S.A.M.]

Seems like even atheists can't stay in one group but make divisions based on fine distinctions!

 

[spidergoat]

Of course, we are very independently minded.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, we are very independently minded.

Does that mean you have different ideologies too

 

[Raithere]

This is called mickeymouse Atheism. All these mickeymouse terms like weak/strong/atheistagnostic etc are mickeymouseterms.

The Mickey mouse term in this discussion is "god".

You're expecting atheism to give a definitive position regarding an undefined term. Or more specifically, a term that refers to a bunch of loosely related, vaguely defined, and often contradictory concepts.

In order to answer the question "What is atheism?" you must first define what theism is and in order to do that you must define "god".

~Raithere