What exactly is atheism?

[Enmos]

I guess it is just a feeling I pick up. Sort of an impression that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything you or anybody speficically said. These impressions are different for evebody. For you, it's an impression that you growth in a metaphysical sense in one form or another. While all humans are part of the planet earth, you probably have more of a natural connection to it. Which is why I am not surprised when you mention something about the environment. You were born to defend the environment. You should become an ecoterrorist. See it's not like I think I know people. I honestly know nothing about people in here. I don't know what people for a living or what their family or daily life is like. But there are impressions of personalities that I get.

Well, most of that is apparent from my posts on this forum.. but eco-terrorist ? hehe No thanks

Spiritualism is a rather broad term though. I would say I am not spiritual in the sense of believing in woowoo stuff.
In fact, I wouldn't know in what sense I would call my myself spiritual, most of the time I take offense if people call me spiritual Perhaps I'm one of the least spiritual people here (according to mainstream definitions).

 

[Enmos]

Q said referred to non-theists 'demonstrating the non-existence of god' and not a single atheist in this discussion, not you, not Sarkus, not Phlogistan, not one of you is going to comment on that.

But you will make damn sure that anything you think the lixluxe says that you consider illogical is thoroughly commented on.

Why is that?

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.
And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant

 

[lixluke]

You consider 1 to be the correct etymology - but provide little/no evidence to support your case.
You say that 2 is not the original intended use... yet you provide no evidence to support your case.

We went over this earlier.
Disbelief: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Atheism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

And as for atheism being an "-ism" - all this means is that atheists follow their lives as though there is no god.

Yes.

It does not mean that they actually believe god to not exist

This is incorrect, and a different argument. For the sake of this discussion, let us just say that atheism includes those who follow their lives as though there is no God.

- just that they do not follow their lives as if god does exist. - i.e. someone who does not follow theism.

An individual who claims not to know wheter or not God exists does not follow his life as if God does exist. Nor does he follow his life as if there is no God. An individual who neither follows his life as if there was a God or as if there was no God is neither theism or atheism.

And this ties in with the etymology of atheism from "atheos" meaning godless - i.e. those that lived their lives without gods - i.e. anyone who did not follow their lives as though the Gods existed - or indeed anyone who just refused to acknowledge them.

Yes. These people were not on the fence about anything. They simply rejected the acknowledgement of any existence of God. They did not say I don't know if there is a God because as far as they're concerned there was no God. That is what atheism is about. Godlessness.
Not "I'm not sure that God doesn't exist".<- This is not Godlessness, and not necessarily on the position of being with God.

 

[Simon Anders]

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.

Fair enough, though somehow it seems a number of atheists appear and deal with lixluxe wherever he appears. But perhaps you mean addressing in that he is defining atheism. But I still think there is a kind of honor system. I mean, when there were threads saying atheists are ___________ (anti creative was one.) I joined in and said I thought it was crap - though more gussied up in my argument. It seems to me if crap is said by one's team - whatever the fuck that means, but it sure seems to be a factor - one should, especially if one is the representative of logic and reason - not function like one is merely on a team.

I mean one of the biggest claims, which Q implictly makes in relation to me in his recent posts here, is that religion is to blame for much human atrocity. A good way to role model a better world would be to break the my team is right model and be able to criticize one's own.

Me I think we will find excuses for violence with or without religion.

And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant

Yes, I understood your formulation. And I see that as putting us at an impasse. Which is good. I have nothing to discuss with that position. Which is fine. With Q, he says things that are worded poorly often enough for me to think he means what he says, despite later denials.

And with all the rage there......

I mean, he told me 'Reality would abhor your position." Apart from the fact that my position is a part of reality....

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.

 

[lixluke]

Well first of all Q is not addressing me, Lix is directly addressing me.
And I didn't think he meant it the way you think he meant it, but if he did I disagree. However, I think I have seen him talk about this stuff before and from that I think I'm right about what he means by it. He could have formulated it better then..
Post 348 may also be relevant

Would you go as far as to claim that somebody who does not know if there is a God or if there is no God as Godless?

 

[(Q)]

Come on Q, don't play manipulative word games. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze AGe. You were using Bronze Age to mean religion. But obviously mankind is not in agreement with you about religion.

Is that the fault of mankind or the fault of a cult ideology that perpetuates itself through the indoctrination of children and the recruitment of its members? Mankind is held in slavery by doctrines and tenets handed down from the Bronze Age.

 

[(Q)]

You wrote about 'demonstrating of the non-existence of gods'.

1) this has not happened

The non-existence of gods is demonstrated every moment of every day in as much as the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of a garden pond is demonstrated. Further demonstrations of the non-existence of gods can be seen anywhere, anytime. Feel free to observe god free zones everywhere on the planet.

2) it can only be said by someone who believes there are not gods.

It can be said by anyone.

You refuse to admit that you have this position. Perhaps because it separates you from other atheists, perhaps because you know that it is a problem to defend.

Your position is impossible to defend. Mine is simple. Mine however can change the instant you demonstrate yours.

You want your cake and eat it too. Make remarks that are from that philosophy, then deny it when it is pointed out.

I'm not going to pretend you are making sense.

If you insist.

 

[Simon Anders]

The non-existence of gods is demonstrated every moment of every day in as much as the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of a garden pond is demonstrated. Further demonstrations of the non-existence of gods can be seen anywhere, anytime. Feel free to observe god free zones everywhere on the planet.

This is not true. If you spend a little time thinking of other examples, you will see that this is a poor method.

It can be said by anyone...

...who said it honestly AND believes there is no God. You would make a great lawyer or self-protective witness.

Your position is impossible to defend. Mine is simple. Mine however can change the instant you demonstrate yours.

Are you attacking my position? Why would you do that? How odd, seriously. I have never attacked the position you are claiming to have. I have never tried to convince an atheist to believe in God or that they are wrong for not believing in God. The truth is I have no reason to defend my position. I can see where someone would need to defend a proselytizing one. If I thought you should believe in God because I do, then I would have a problem defending my position, but that's not my position.

Odd that your position is dependent on mine. Phlogistan, who does not make claims that god does not exist, can take such a stand. But you cannot. You have a belief. Until it is pointed out and then you run to the board with an eraser.

If you insist.

It would be silly to do otherwise.

 

[lixluke]

If you believe there is no God, you are an atheist. Unfortunately, atheists seem to have some issue with simply stating that they believe there is no God. One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless. However one who is certain there is no God, is Godless which is atheism.

 

[shaman_]

One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless.

If they don't believe in any gods then yes they are godless.

 

[Sarkus]

We went over this earlier.
Disbelief: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Atheism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

The first gives "disbelief" as the mental rejection of something as untrue. To reject something is not the same as accepting the opposite.
The second gives 2 definitions, the first of which is "disbelief in the existence of a deity".

So your own sources prove you incorrect... yet you continue to argue?

An individual who claims not to know wheter or not God exists does not follow his life as if God does exist. Nor does he follow his life as if there is no God. An individual who neither follows his life as if there was a God or as if there was no God is neither theism or atheism.

So how does the person who claims not to know actually go about with his life? Surely he either lives it as though God exists, or he doesn't, regardless of his belief (or lack thereof). What is the alternative?

Is Big Brother watching me? I don't know. I have no evidence that he is. I therefore live my life as though he isn't. But he could be. Some have no evidence but choose to live their life as though they are always being watched (we call them paranoid). Furthermore, there are some who might very well have evidence of being watched, but go about their lives as if they aren't.

If you believe there is no God, you are an atheist.

Correct, as these are a subset of atheists - i.e. anyone who is not a theist.

Unfortunately, atheists seem to have some issue with simply stating that they believe there is no God.

As explained, because most atheists here don't go as far as to claim god does not exist. All that is required is to not hold the belief "God exists".

One who is unsure of the existence/non-existence of God is not Godless.

If I ask you to hold a ball, and you dither over whether to take it or not... are you with or without the ball?

However one who is certain there is no God, is Godless which is atheism.

By dint of being a subset of all atheists, yes, as previously explained to you.

 

[Enmos]

Fair enough, though somehow it seems a number of atheists appear and deal with lixluxe wherever he appears.

Well, he is quite 'vocal' and so draws attention, plus he is making absolute statements about other peoples world views. I guess he can expect reactions.

But perhaps you mean addressing in that he is defining atheism.

Uh no, he replied to posts of mine that were not addressed to him. What should I do, ignore him ?
Here:

It's nice that you feel that way. However, "Atheism", is commonly accepted for what its original intended use which is to describe only those who believe there is no God. This implies the belief in true and false. Those who believe there is no such thing as true and false cannot take up a true/false position. As such, they are not atheists.

To label anybody that does not believe in God as "atheism" is just as silly as labeling anybody that does not believe there is no God as "theism".

True/False is the basis for logical thought. Logical reasoning is used to come to conclusions of truth or fallacy.

Subjectivism is the belief that there is no such thing as objective true/false.
Skepticism is the belief that there is such thing as objective true/false, but man can never obtain knowledge of true/false.

But I still think there is a kind of honor system. I mean, when there were threads saying atheists are ___________ (anti creative was one.) I joined in and said I thought it was crap - though more gussied up in my argument. It seems to me if crap is said by one's team - whatever the fuck that means, but it sure seems to be a factor - one should, especially if one is the representative of logic and reason - not function like one is merely on a team.

I'm not sure I follow.. those threads falsely accuse people of not very nice things solely because they don't hold the belief the thread-maker does.
Of course the addressed group is going to react in a certain way. I have no idea were you get the sense that they are teaming.. but perhaps it is because they all argue against the same accusation.

I mean one of the biggest claims, which Q implictly makes in relation to me in his recent posts here, is that religion is to blame for much human atrocity. A good way to role model a better world would be to break the my team is right model and be able to criticize one's own.

I somewhat agree with Q on this though.
Non-believers have been (more than) discriminated against throughout history by believers. Burning of heretics and stuff. Also believers haven't been particularly nice to each other. The same sentiments still exist today albeit diluted.
Believers have always been the ones to say "my team is right, and your team is wrong/evil", not non-believers.
Now the tables are slowly turning. See it as a revolution

Me I think we will find excuses for violence with or without religion.

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter still is that people have found (and still find) the excuses in religion.

Yes, I understood your formulation. And I see that as putting us at an impasse. Which is good. I have nothing to discuss with that position. Which is fine. With Q, he says things that are worded poorly often enough for me to think he means what he says, despite later denials.

And with all the rage there......

I mean, he told me 'Reality would abhor your position." Apart from the fact that my position is a part of reality....

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.

"Reality would abhor your position".. that's pretty meaningless in itself.

 

[Enmos]

Would you go as far as to claim that somebody who does not know if there is a God or if there is no God as Godless?

I would even go as far as to say that everyone is godless

 

[swarm]

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?

Actually I do frequently bring that point up.

 

[swarm]

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.

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.

I'm surprised you have never encountered this discussion. It usually happens when the hard atheists try to convince soft atheists and agnostics that there "really" is only the hard atheist position, i.e. a reiteration of the theist claim that if you aren't for, you are against.

It is really hard for some people to realize that the soft atheist position, in addition to lacking belief, is also a matter of calling a procedural foul against the theists and declining them the ability to declare their god by fiat.

We really aren't to the point of actually making a case for or against anything yet. There is insufficient evidence from the theists (i.e. none) even to begin to form an opinion.

Until they produce some shred of reason beyond their personal hubris to even consider the question the default position for anything which cannot be shown to exist is to assume it does not.

Where the hard atheists run afoul of their enthusiasm is in going beyond the presumption of non existence to full on claiming a god could not possibly exist.

This is as absurd as the theist position since no information about god exists.

The best a hard atheist can do is show that the various descriptions offered by the theists of what they think a god would be like, are self contradictory or categorically impossible. But the imaginings of theists are endless.

It is much easier to knock those out all at the same time in the very beginning by saying "show me an actual god and stop making shit up."

 

[Enmos]

I'm surprised you have never encountered this discussion. It usually happens when the hard atheists try to convince soft atheists and agnostics that there "really" is only the hard atheist position, i.e. a reiteration of the theist claim that if you aren't for, you are against.

It is really hard for some people to realize that the soft atheist position, in addition to lacking belief, is also a matter of calling a procedural foul against the theists and declining them the ability to declare their god by fiat.

We really aren't to the point of actually making a case for or against anything yet. There is insufficient evidence from the theists (i.e. none) even to begin to form an opinion.

Until they produce some shred of reason beyond their personal hubris to even consider the question the default position for anything which cannot be shown to exist is to assume it does not.

Where the hard atheists run afoul of their enthusiasm is in going beyond the presumption of non existence to full on claiming a god could not possibly exist.

This is as absurd as the theist position since no information about god exists.

The best a hard atheist can do is show that the various descriptions offered by the theists of what they think a god would be like, are self contradictory or categorically impossible. But the imaginings of theists are endless.

It is much easier to knock those out all at the same time in the very beginning by saying "show me an actual god and stop making shit up."

Well said, although that last sentence could have been said by a 'hard atheist'

 

[(Q)]

This is not true. If you spend a little time thinking of other examples, you will see that this is a poor method.

Examples like what? The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Alien visitations? There are plenty of examples of the non-existence of that which is purported to exist, each and every day. Now, if you could do the same and provide me with an example of gods existence?

...who said it honestly AND believes there is no God. You would make a great lawyer or self-protective witness.

That's another debate.

The truth is I have no reason to defend my position.

You have therefore realized the same thing as me, that your position, as a theist, is defenseless, and that the only defense you could possibly muster is one from blind faith.

Odd that your position is dependent on mine. Phlogistan, who does not make claims that god does not exist, can take such a stand. But you cannot. You have a belief.

My position has nothing at all to do with yours, no matter how much you'd like to believe in such nonsense. The universe appears to be devoid of gods, demonstrated each and every day. Not one has ever been observed, nor has anything else remotely concerned with theists claims ever been observed. Your position is one that defies this reality in favor of a reality you WANT to believe in. I'm certainly not dependent on your wanting to believe in a reality teeming with gods.

 

[(Q)]

the man has a lot of hate built up, projected or not.

You appear to relish in talking about me with other members, is that your way to somehow gain credibility?

Hate built up? Get a life, Simon.

 

[Balerion]

I have to agree with Swarm that so-called "hard atheists" step over the intellectual line when they assert that they know no gods exist. Also, I agree that belief is not the default position.

But that is not to say we are not allowed to scoff at the idea of the gods currently presented to us in the West. All of the myths and dogmas of the Abrahamic religions are ridiculous, and obviously untrue, therefore we can take those myths' status as circumstantial evidence for the non-existence of that particular god.

 

[lixluke]

The first gives "disbelief" as the mental rejection of something as untrue. To reject something is not the same as accepting the opposite.
The second gives 2 definitions, the first of which is "disbelief in the existence of a deity".

So your own sources prove you incorrect... yet you continue to argue?

So how does the person who claims not to know actually go about with his life? Surely he either lives it as though God exists, or he doesn't, regardless of his belief (or lack thereof). What is the alternative?

Is Big Brother watching me? I don't know. I have no evidence that he is. I therefore live my life as though he isn't. But he could be. Some have no evidence but choose to live their life as though they are always being watched (we call them paranoid). Furthermore, there are some who might very well have evidence of being watched, but go about their lives as if they aren't.


Correct, as these are a subset of atheists - i.e. anyone who is not a theist.
As explained, because most atheists here don't go as far as to claim god does not exist. All that is required is to not hold the belief "God exists".

If I ask you to hold a ball, and you dither over whether to take it or not... are you with or without the ball?

By dint of being a subset of all atheists, yes, as previously explained to you.

Your interpretation of the dictionary is conveniently incorrect. The dictionary clearly states that disbelief is a rejection of the idea that God exists. Thus, pointing out that God does not exist. I don't know about other sources, but this is the intended interpretation for the source I posted.

It doesn't matter if you have evidence or not if Big Brother is watching you. You do not need evidence to take a position on the matter. Is Big Brother watching you? Yes or no? Or you are unsure/don't know. If you believe there is no Big Brother, does the fact that you can't show somebody some form of evidence mean you are unsure?

Having evidence or no evidence has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Either you make a claim one way or another. If you do not, you are neither. That is the original proper interpretation of atheism and theism.

It is impossible for somebody that does not believe "God does not exist" to live his life as though God does not exist. Most of these people are those who belive God does not exist, but refuse to acknowledge what they believe because they don't know how logic works.

Your ball example is not the same thing as being unsure. Either you take the red ball or the blue ball. If you are unsure which ball to take, you are neither red or blue.

Those who believe 'there is no God' are not a subset of atheism. They are the only ones who fall under atheism. One claiming atheism and not claiming that 'there is no God' is either lying about being an atheist or actually does believe 'there is no God', but fooling themself into claiming uncertainty about it.