What exactly is atheism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SnakeLord said:
First time I think we agree on something Jan :)

An atheist is anyone that doesn't believe in gods (for whatever reason).
Click to expand...
Misonception.

Throughout history, philosophers discuss their views on various subjects. Some views building on others. Typically, when there is a popular view, there tends to be those with a counterviewpoint.
View = X
Counterview = -X

Those who for whatever reason do not praticipate or are undecided/uncertain about the subject have no reason to be labled under any "ism". There is the "ism" of View X. Then there is the "ism" of View X's counterview which is View Y. There is no reason to label those who do not participate.


This is an article from the internet discussing the propaganda being spread to redefine atheism:
It has come to my attention that 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.



Some proponents of this definition can be found in the alt.atheism newsgroup and at the following web sites:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_atheism101.htm

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/atheist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



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.



But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of people:

Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).

Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.

Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).



It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists.



One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless.



Another problem with a “lack of belief” definition is that it is not accepted by the vast majority of people. I personally don’t know anyone who considers babies atheists because they lack belief in gods. I also don’t know of any people who are agnostic or undecided about the existence of God who call themselves atheists.



The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of “atheism” is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition. On page three I have posted and examined many reputable dictionary definitions. On page four I have posted excerpts from reputable Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica.



On the next page I have posted some of the arguments these people have used, and I explained why why they are so damn stupid. But first this would be a good time to read the following links.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
Click to expand...
 
Jan Ardena said:
greenberg,
I don't think fear comes into it, unless you are knowingly wrong.
I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.
No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.
jan.
Click to expand...

Jan Ardena said:
Who said anything about defence?
jan.
Click to expand...

You strongly implied, if not stated outright, the teachings of Jesus are easy to understand & should be followed.
I showed a small part of the evidence that is not true.
You then think it's up to me to explain it further. It's not. At this point, anyway.
Do you think those things I mentioned are easy to understand & should be believed & followed & lived by as a good example?
1111
 
lixluke
No matter how many references you cite, how many people agree or don't or how many times & ways you say it, it does not make sense.
1111
 
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. Whatever definition you want to come up with, this is the one with the most utility and the one that is at the base of all humanity since everyone starts out as an atheist -without any belief of gods.

God beliefs are then indoctrinated upon atheist children by their parents, family, and the culture they are raised in, in much the same manner as cultural beliefs of gender roles, morals, and taboos.

Coolskill, you were once an atheist. You're still an atheist with regard to most of humanity's gods, you just choose to believe in the gods of Christianity.
 
Lixluke was coolskill but changed his screen name. I have no idea what the "licking" thing is about or who luke is.
 
I have much doubt about anyone 25 (probably much younger) or older being an actual atheist then becoming a theist. With enough information available, it turns out they believed long before the time they claim to have converted.
1111
 
Lixluke, that "article" is flawed due to the simple fact that it does not understand what agnosticism is.

It treats agnosticism as a middle path - between "believing in X" and "believing in not-X"... the undecided.
But this is an incorrect understanding of agnosticism... and as such the rest of the article is rather moot.

FYI - agnosticism is the position that the object in question (e.g. God) is inherently unknowable, or that one lacks personal knoweldge of the object.
Usually, but not always, this leads rationally to a position of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in God) but you DO get agnostic theists: people who understand God to be unknowable, but nevertheless believe in his existence.

Until you, and I presume whoever wrote that article you posted, can understand and appreciate what agnosticism actually is, I guess you will forever be misunderstanding the term "atheism".

To recap for you:

Theism / atheism is one's stance on the existence of God.
Agnosticism is a stance on the epistemology of God - i.e. whether God is knowable, personally or inherehently.

I, for one, am an agnostic atheist.
But I know agnostic theists - and surely their very existence sure scuppers your entire argument, no? Afterall, how could one possibly be both agnostic AND a theist?? :eek:
 
Jan Ardena said:
Actually, christianity wasn't my concern.
Click to expand...

What was it then? Impersonalism, for example? I know there are many other disputes among religionists about the nature of God. Interestingly, although I know of those disputes, I have never been all that concerned about them. Which goes to show that my tendency to give so much credence specifically to Christianity and its disputes is possibly just circumstantial, not essential - and that if I had been raised under the influence of some other religion and its disputes, I'd possibly be dealing with those problems, not Christianity's.


And what is their authority based on, why it would have such a profound effect on your very essence?
Click to expand...

I think a lot about these things, obviously :( :eek:

So I think the formula is basically this:
1. Fire and brimstone Christianity has from early on conditioned my body and mind.
2. My body in mind are in constant stress.
3. I identify with my mind and body.
4. I feel stressed out.

Possible solution: 1. de-stress the body and mind (such as with proper diet and exercise), 2. disidentify with the body and mind (such as with using it for transcendental service - yay, I used the word "transcendental" for the first time without feeling like trash at it!! seriously).
It seems no direct confrontation with Christianity is necessary (of course my "inner Christian" is convinced differently).
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
You strongly implied, if not stated outright, the teachings of Jesus are easy to understand & should be followed.
I showed a small part of the evidence that is not true.
You then think it's up to me to explain it further. It's not. At this point, anyway.
Do you think those things I mentioned are easy to understand & should be believed & followed & lived by as a good example?
1111
Click to expand...

Let's look at your first example; "Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?"

This is quite simply a demonstration of faith.
If you like we can go into it more.

jan.
 
lixluke said:
Misonception.

Throughout history, philosophers discuss their views on various subjects. Some views building on others. Typically, when there is a popular view, there tends to be those with a counterviewpoint.
View = X
Counterview = -X
Click to expand...

Atheism is not the 'counter view' of theism though, this is where you fail.

It's simply not being a theist.

Atheism is not -X it's $$ \overline {X}$$
 
Sarkus said:
Lixluke, that "article" is flawed due to the simple fact that it does not understand what agnosticism is.

It treats agnosticism as a middle path - between "believing in X" and "believing in not-X"... the undecided.
But this is an incorrect understanding of agnosticism... and as such the rest of the article is rather moot.

FYI - agnosticism is the position that the object in question (e.g. God) is inherently unknowable, or that one lacks personal knoweldge of the object.
Usually, but not always, this leads rationally to a position of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in God) but you DO get agnostic theists: people who understand God to be unknowable, but nevertheless believe in his existence.

Until you, and I presume whoever wrote that article you posted, can understand and appreciate what agnosticism actually is, I guess you will forever be misunderstanding the term "atheism".

To recap for you:

Theism / atheism is one's stance on the existence of God.
Agnosticism is a stance on the epistemology of God - i.e. whether God is knowable, personally or inherehently.

I, for one, am an agnostic atheist.
But I know agnostic theists - and surely their very existence sure scuppers your entire argument, no? Afterall, how could one possibly be both agnostic AND a theist?? :eek:
Click to expand...
This definitions are incorrect.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Theism is the belief that God does exist.
Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists.

In this case, it is impossible for either theist or atheist to also be agnostic. If one believes that man can or cannot know that God exists, one cannot be theist or atheist. Agnostics are not Godless or Godful so to speak. The simply do not know, and believe such knowledge is not possible.

Skepticism is the belief that man cannot know anything. Thus, all skeptics are agnostics by default. All agnostics, however, are not necessarily skeptics.
 
phlogistician said:
Atheism is not the 'counter view' of theism though, this is where you fail.

It's simply not being a theist.

Atheism is not -X it's $$ \overline {X}$$
Click to expand...
Wrong. Anybody who is not a theist is not necessarily an atheist. Atheist is the counterview of theism.
 
SkinWalker said:
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods.
Click to expand...
Those who claim that certain knowledge of God cannot be known, and those who simply do not know are not atheists. Atheists are only those who claim they know for certain there is no such thing as God.
Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.

The ideologies and terms created by infidels.org are all concocted to indoctrinize atheism.
 
lixluke said:
Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.
Click to expand...
That's just stupid. It should be: "Because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, there is no reason to assume he exists".
 
lixluke said:
Those who claim that certain knowledge of God cannot be known, and those who simply do not know are not atheists. Atheists are only those who claim they know for certain there is no such thing as God.
Atheism: Until you can prove that God exists, there is definitely no such thing as God.

The ideologies and terms created by infidels.org are all concocted to indoctrinize atheism.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong.
 
Enmos said:
That's just stupid. It should be: "Because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, there is no reason to assume he exists".
Click to expand...
That is not Atheism. Atheism simply nothing more than the belief that God does not exist. The part of "until you show me evidence/proof" or any other extra reasons/contingencies are more not necessarily the case for 100% of people who claim that God does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top