What exactly is atheism?

[Enmos]

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.

I agree, anti-theism is a really bad way of terming it. It seems to imply actively being against theism.

 

[Simon Anders]

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.

I agree.

But that doesn't address the main issue there.

I will now use my (and your terminology)

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something. (iow they claim to know something)

where is the discussion of this difference.

It makes atheists who simply lack a belief in God incredibly angry if it is assumed they are like this other subset of atheists. They are willing to participate in incredibly long threads to make sure that it is not assumed they are like these other guys.

So it must be an important distinction.

I find it odd that a discussion does not take place between these two types of atheists.

If you go into the religion forum you can find threads where theists argue with each other about differences in belief that are of significance to us.

 

[Simon Anders]

I agree, anti-theism is a really bad way of terming it. It seems to imply actively being against theism.

You should take this up with Phlog.

 

[Simon Anders]

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.

So you are not ruling out that some god might exist. I think your wording was poor there then, but I, of course, accept that this is what you meant.

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.

You should take this up with Phlog if the issue is important to you. I agree with your problem with the term. Some dictionaries do support this usage, but I think it is misleading. I have friends who are anti-theists, but they never work in any way against theism or theists. They do not try to ameliorate theism or reduce it. Or theists. I think there should be a positive term for it since it is a belief, unlike other atheists who simply lack a belief.

 

[phlogistician]

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

Yes, because it's a faith based proposition. While I feel the chances of there being a God is approaching zero, to claim there is no God, and make a definitive statement is not scientific.

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.

Atheists are not necessarily anti-theists, is what I mean to get across. Even though anti-theists are atheists (just like agnostics are atheists) that does not mean we have to include the definition of the subset. For some reason, the definition of agnostic doesn't get added to atheist, but they are not theists, ....

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.

It is being used more and more recently. When I started debating on the WWW all those years ago (and I worked in Academia, I've had access since the late 80's) this 'anti-theist' angle never came up. In fact, I'm seeing it more and more in the last couple of years than ever before, so yes, as a widespread view, it is more prevalent now.

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.

Like I said agnostics are not lumped into the definition of atheist, but they are most definitely not theists. Therefore to lump anti-theists in is incongruous.

Also, like I said in my other post, being a theist does not guarantee which god, so being an atheist should confer nothing exceptional either.

 

[(Q)]

I agree.

But that doesn't address the main issue there.

I will now use my (and your terminology)

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something. (iow they claim to know something)

where is the discussion of this difference.

Perhaps, what they "know" is the track record of religions, in regards to the supernatural, their history, their atrocities in the name of their god, and all the other wonderful things religions purport that has or has not had an effect on reality. Perhaps, they also "know" the earth wasn't created in 6000 years, that virgin births and resurrections have never been shown to occur, that the magic in the bible is pure bunkum.

Perhaps there is a great deal one can "know" about religions.

 

[phlogistician]

I agree, anti-theism is a really bad way of terming it. It seems to imply actively being against theism.

Are the Antipodes actively against the Podes? Is Anti-Clockwise a political stance against Clockwise? Is an anti-hero a villain? No.

Contra-theist would imply being actively against theists, wouldn't it?

There is nothing wrong with the term 'anti-theist'.

 

[Enmos]

I agree.

But that doesn't address the main issue there.

I will now use my (and your terminology)

The atheists who simply lack a belief in God, it seems to me, have a significant philosophical difference with atheists who believe there is no God. This latter group is making a claim. They know something. (iow they claim to know something)

where is the discussion of this difference.

It makes atheists who simply lack a belief in God incredibly angry if it is assumed they are like this other subset of atheists. They are willing to participate in incredibly long threads to make sure that it is not assumed they are like these other guys.

So it must be an important distinction.

I find it odd that a discussion does not take place between these two types of atheists.

If you go into the religion forum you can find threads where theists argue with each other about differences in belief that are of significance to us.

Simon, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

I think most atheists (at least the ones with a brain) do not believe in any god because there simply is no evidence for it and no implication whatsoever for any gods existence. The whole idea of a god goes against nature itself, it is not only not necessary but it even contradicts nature.
These atheist are of the opinion (because of the reasons above) that the existence of a god is so unbelievably improbable that you can just as well say he doesn't exist. But at the same time they have to admit that they can't know that with a 100% certainty (albeit by a negligible margin). A lot of theists don't seem to get this and that is why atheists are wary about saying things like "god doesn't exist". Because then the theists come up with crap arguments like "atheism is just another religion".

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.

 

[Enmos]

You should take this up with Phlog.

I don't really care much how one likes to label himself though. As long as people don't try to label me wrongly.

 

[Simon Anders]

Perhaps, what they "know" is the track record of religions, in regards to the supernatural, their history, their atrocities in the name of their god, and all the other wonderful things religions purport that has or has not had an effect on reality. Perhaps, they also "know" the earth wasn't created in 6000 years, that virgin births and resurrections have never been shown to occur, that the magic in the bible is pure bunkum.

Perhaps there is a great deal one can "know" about religions.

That is all fine and dandy. I share a lot of what they 'know' in that case. But they are making a claim to knowledge in relation to God in the specific case I mentioned. And what you described above sounds like it would be perfectly well described by anti-theism.

It is simply not good science or philosophy to decide something must be false because of the past behavior of those who believed it was true - even setting aside the behavior of some theists even anti-theists must admire.

So to make a claim of knowledge about the existence of something is still a difference with atheists who simply lack a belief in God and who can also have all the kinds of knowing you listed above about religions.

 

[Enmos]

Are the Antipodes actively against the Podes? Is Anti-Clockwise a political stance against Clockwise? Is an anti-hero a villain? No.

Contra-theist would imply being actively against theists, wouldn't it?

There is nothing wrong with the term 'anti-theist'.

"It seems to imply.."

I know what you mean by it, but lots of people will misinterpret the term. That's why I don't think it's a good term.

 

[(Q)]

So you are not ruling out that some god might exist. I think your wording was poor there then, but I, of course, accept that this is what you meant.

I see it this way, there is always the possibility of gods existing, just as there is the possibility of fairies and gnomes existing, or whatever one wishes to claim. However, the probability of gods existing, based on evidence, is so highly improbable, it barely registers as an infinitesimally small probability.

You should take this up with Phlog if the issue is important to you.

I was taking it up with you as you were the one questioning me.

I agree with your problem with the term. Some dictionaries do support this usage, but I think it is misleading. I have friends who are anti-theists, but they never work in any way against theism or theists. They do not try to ameliorate theism or reduce it. Or theists. I think there should be a positive term for it since it is a belief, unlike other atheists who simply lack a belief.

There is an added definition to "anti" - not in favor of, which might give some credibility to those who don't actively oppose religion, they are simply not in favor of religion.

 

[Simon Anders]

Then there are those that have been indoctrinated for whatever reason. Those are the ones that believe that there is not god, but not for any rational reason.
These atheists "know" there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there IS a god.

Both are atheists in my book, but from a completely different angle.

I really do understand what you said about those who lack the belief. I notice that you call the atheists who believe there is no God indoctrinated. Again, this speaks of a significant philosophical difference. And so the lack of discussion between these two types of atheist confuses me.

 

[Enmos]

Anyway.. wasn't the original question "What exactly is atheism ?" ?
I think that has been answered.

Does anyone have a comment to make about this picture ?

 

[Enmos]

I really do understand what you said about those who lack the belief. I notice that you call the atheists who believe there is no God indoctrinated. Again, this speaks of a significant philosophical difference. And so the lack of discussion between these two types of atheist confuses me.

Atheists are not a coherent group. All they have in common is not believing in some fairy tale (pardon).

 

[phlogistician]

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.

I suggest 'contra-theism' for actively trying to disprove theism. Although I am for religions paying tax, that's about the establishment of religion, not the belief in God, so 'contra-theism' doesn't fit the bill for being against religion. We need yet another word for that.

People who believe in God don't get to dodge tax. Only organised religions do, so I think the word for people who don't think the church should be able to dodge tax is 'fair minded'.

 

[Simon Anders]

possibility[/i] of gods existing, just as there is the possibility of fairies and gnomes existing, or whatever one wishes to claim. However, the probability of gods existing, based on evidence, is so highly improbable, it barely registers as an infinitesimally small probability.

Fine.

I was taking it up with you as you were the one questioning me.

Just making it clear that it is not my terminology.

There is an added definition to "anti" - not in favor of, which might give some credibility to those who don't actively oppose religion, they are simply not in favor of religion.

That's getting close, but I have to say it would still rule out those who are indifferent. Those I know would not say they 'are not in favor of religion', just as they would not say they 'are not in favor of homosexuality'. They believe there is no god, do not think about it much and could care less what other people do as long as it does not affect them directly.

 

[phlogistician]

"It seems to imply.."

I know what you mean by it, but lots of people will misinterpret the term. That's why I don't think it's a good term.

Problem is, unless we start defining terms clearly, there will be ambiguity. We need words for things; let's not be shy about offering them.

 

[Enmos]

I really don't understand the need for all these artificial 'sub-divisions' within the concept "atheism".

 

[Simon Anders]

People who believe in God don't get to dodge tax. Only organised religions do, so I think the word for people who don't think the church should be able to dodge tax is 'fair minded'.

I agree with you on this issue. Belief systems and taxs have nothing to do with each other.