What exactly is atheism?

[Simon Anders]

Also, to clear things up, the usage of atheist to mean 'someone who denies the existence of God' while technically correct in one specific circumstance, is misleading.

Atheist means someone who does not believe in God. A subset of those might go as far as denying god (so meet the general criteria), but the superset is not defined by the constraints of the subset. Get it? Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists, the relationship is not a bijection.

You could have saved a lot of back and forth with me if you had said this long ago. Your position is now a lot closer to most dictionaries, including the OED, and philosophical usage. It also saves you the trouble of trying to convert anti-theists/atheists here like Q, Stranger, Medicine Woman and JDawg who include what you call anti-theists in their definition of atheist.

 

[(Q)]

It also saves you the trouble of trying to convert anti-theists/atheists here like Q, who include what you call anti-theists in their definition of theist.

:shrug:

 

[Simon Anders]

:shrug:

I could be mistaken but it seems to me you have identified with atheists. You have directly denied the existence of God:

It is just another silly contrivance on the part of theists to prop up their cults. Their gods doesn't exist in, out, above, below or anywhere else other than their imaginations.So, we could probably safely conclude it is their imaginations that are, "Out of this Universe!"

If you do identify yourself not as an atheist, but rather as an anti-theist then you are in agreement with Phlogistan's labeling system and I will edit your name off the list. If, however, you consider yourself an atheist, then I will leave the list as is. I am afraid the quote above eliminates agnostic as an option. I am open to hearing about other labeling possibilities.

 

[(Q)]

If, however, you consider yourself an atheist, then I will leave the list as is. I am afraid the quote above eliminates agnostic as an option. I am open to hearing about other labeling possibilities.

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:

 

[Simon Anders]

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:

I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

anti-theists/atheists here like Q [etc.]

clearly putting you NOT in the theist camp.

If you do not consider yourself an atheist then you do not belong on that list. If you consider yourself an anti-theist then you are using terms according to Phlog's terminology. If you consider yourself an atheist, then you disagree with his terminology, given that you denied, in the earlier cited example, the existence of God or gods.

edit: I can see how my ironic use of 'convert' might have been misleading.

 

[lixluke]

Your arguments tend to run along the lines of...

My source defines X as (a), (b) and (c).
I choose (a) and reject all other definitions.
Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with the dictionary.
Therefore anyone who also uses (b) or (c) are wrong.
QED.

Thus endeth the discussion, methinks.

I never said this anywhere. I didn't even post the link to the dictionary until somebody aksed for it.

I never claimed to be discussing accpetance or rejection of alternate uses of a term. I am simply providing the originally intended commonly accpeted use of the terms.

The point in any alternate use of the term is a different discussion. It is not about accpeting or rejecting. There is simply very specific definition for these terms that have been in common use. The question is about whether or not it is reasonable to use alternate definitions.

There is no reason to use "atheism" to describe anybody that does not claim that there is no God. There is not reason to use agnosticism to describe anybody that does not take the position that man can never know whether or not God exists.

It is as simple as that. There has yet to be shown any legitimate reason to categorize somebody under atheism who has no position on the matter.

Anybody who wants to claim "atheism" is all who do not take the position that there is a God might as well claim that "theism" is all who do not take the position that there is not God.

 

[lixluke]

I certainly don't consider myself a theist. Why would you include me in that group? :shrug:

They are trying to create some new absurd labeling system.

If you do identify yourself not as an atheist, but rather as an anti-theist then you are in agreement with Phlogistan's labeling system

 

[lixluke]

You have directly denied the existence of God

Nuts everywhere are claiming that everybody who directly denies the existence of God is "anti-theism". The proper interpretation of anti-theism is anybody who hates theists. Not anybody who directly denies the existence of God. Anybody who does not directly deny the existence of God cannot fall under atheism.

 

[phlogistician]

Disbelieving is simply defined as a rejection of a matter as true. If you claim that you will not win the lottery, it means you reject the claim that you will win the lottery. Whatever word you want to use or interpretation of it, the whole point is a claim that something is false. If you don't like that definition for disbelief, find another word for it, and use it. All you are doing is arguing definitions. Definitions arguments are based on intent and standard use.

No, all you are doing, is twisting definitions, without a purpose or goal. Your lies lead nowhere.

It's not about a claim, it's about belief. Your clearly cannot make the distinction. We do not know what is true, this is the crux. We can believe, based on evidence, or reject, based on the paucity of evidence, but 'truth'? Please, that's as much an abstract concept as 'faith'.

You are wrapped up in absolutes that you can have no knowledge of. Your head is in the sky, as always.

 

[phlogistician]

I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

That's not quite true. Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists are not anti-theists. Anti-theists are a subset of atheists, so the second usage recorded in the dictionary is redundant. "a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity."

Atheism simply means a lack of faith. In that subset are people who go further, better described as anti-theists. You do not define the superset by the parameters of the subset. We are claiming back the word, and clearing up the mud that has been slung.

For example, when we describe people as 'theists' we do not expect them to believe in every god. To qualify as a theist, you just need to believe in one, and that puts theists in a subset of a very large set. We make no assumption about which god theists believe in. Believing in the Christian God does not define the whole set.

Do you see my distinction yet?

 

[(Q)]

I don't. Phlogistan had earlier stated that 'atheist' meant ONLY that one lacked a belief in God. Anyone who believed there was no God was not an atheist but rather an anti-theist. He claimed that theists made up the faulty idea that atheism either included or meant those who believe there is no God.
He had spoken about 'taking back' the word, like lesbians had taken back 'dyke'. I tried to point out how many atheists (including what he would call anti-theists) would need to be converted to this usage. Above I listed a few here at sciforums as examples.

clearly putting you NOT in the theist camp.

If you do not consider yourself an atheist then you do not belong on that list. If you consider yourself an anti-theist then you are using terms according to Phlog's terminology. If you consider yourself an atheist, then you disagree with his terminology, given that you denied, in the earlier cited example, the existence of God or gods.

edit: I can see how my ironic use of 'convert' might have been misleading.

Sorry, perhaps it's a typo in post number 321 that says theist. :shrug:

 

[Simon Anders]

Sorry, perhaps it's a typo in post number 321 that says theist. :shrug:

yeah, the last word should read atheist.

Now that we have done this back and forth so many times, it would be fair if you would actually mention your self-label.

 

[(Q)]

yeah, the last word should read atheist.

Now that we have done this back and forth so many times, it would be fair if you would actually mention your self-label.

I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

What would be the label for that?

 

[Simon Anders]

I'm not so sure anymore. It's all so confusing. I'm spinning round. :runaway:

How about this? I am skeptical of the claims of theists and don't accept what they cannot demonstrate.

What would be the label for that?

Both Phlog and I would call that an atheist. To be fussy I might add that it is a weak atheist (or soft atheist) -which might set Phlog's teeth gnashing.

But if that is your stance then

It is just another silly contrivance on the part of theists to prop up their cults. Their gods doesn't exist in, out, above, below or anywhere else other than their imaginations.So, we could probably safely conclude it is their imaginations that are, "Out of this Universe!"

is problematic. Because you are making an ontological claim that God(s) does/do not exist, period.

That is what I would call a hard atheist stance and Phlog would call an anti-theist and he would not want you to categorize yourself as an atheist. He has become slightly more flexible on this issue, but my sense is he still would prefer 'anti-theist' for those who claim there is no God.

 

[Enmos]

The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".

 

[Enmos]

 

[Simon Anders]

Atheism simply means a lack of faith. In that subset are people who go further, better described as anti-theists. You do not define the superset by the parameters of the subset. We are claiming back the word, and clearing up the mud that has been slung.

So you would consider it slung mud to be considered an 'anti-theist'.

Do you see my distinction yet?

I've seen your distinction for ages. If you want you can go back to where we first started banging heads and I think you will find yourself saying that anti-theists were not atheists.

I think part of the problem is you were fighting with people who only wanted atheist to be what you call anti-theist. I was not taking that position but saying that the word is and has been used to cover both what you call theists and anti-theists. You kept telling me this was incorrect AND a recent invention. The latter is clearly incorrect. It is not a recent usage of the word. I missed at the time that you did say in one post that anti-theists were a subset of atheists, but in other posts you told me that if someone used atheist to include both anti-theists and theists, they were incorrect.

 

[Simon Anders]

The term "atheist" fits everyone that does not believe in any God, for whatever reason or from whatever angle.
In my opinion the term "atheist" can be accurately described as "not a theist".

I agree and so does the OED and so the word has been used for hundreds of years.

Here's what interests me, right now.

I'll use Phlog's terminology.

Anti-theists believe there is no God.
Atheists lack a belief in God.

The former are making a claim.
Why do the latter, here, never challenge the former on that claim?

It even sounds like Phlog considers it an insult to be confused with an anti-theist. That this way of defining atheism is slinging mud at atheists.

 

[(Q)]

Both Phlog and I would call that an atheist. To be fussy I might add that it is a weak atheist (or soft atheist) -which might set Phlog's teeth gnashing.

But if that is your stance then

is problematic. Because you are making an ontological claim that God(s) does/do not exist, period.

It's not problematic at all, I am referring to theists whose claims are little more than what they can muster from the imaginative, which I was stating where their gods must exist, if they exist at all.

That is what I would call a hard atheist stance and Phlog would call an anti-theist and he would not want you to categorize yourself as an atheist. He has become slightly more flexible on this issue, but my sense is he still would prefer 'anti-theist' for those who claim there is no God.

I would suspect 'anti-theism' to be active opposition to theism, perhaps in the line of lobbying for religions to pay taxes, for example. Or, the lobbying against childhood abuse in the form of religious indoctrination. I for one would be quite happy to participate in those activities.

 

[Enmos]

Simon,
Anti-theistm (and I'm going by the definition you gave) is just a form of atheism.
Atheism is the entire group of people that do not believe in any God (see image above). Strong, weak, anti-, etc atheism all fall within this group, but are just different levels of extremity or different ways of looking at it.
That's how I see it anyway.. and I think it's the most logical way to view it as well.