What is "Atheism"?

S

Sarkus

Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe
Valued Senior Member
This may have been asked before, and if so I apologise but I can only search through so many posts before it gets irksome. :)

Anyhoo - what is an "Atheist"?
Reading through the various posts on religion in this forum, I can see variations in peoples' assumptions of what atheists are.

Do they believe that there is no god, or do they merely not believe that there is a god.

I am fully aware that most gods are unprovable concepts by their very nature, but I consider myself atheist - as I do not have a belief in a god.
However, I also know that as far as science is concerned, and the scientific method, the idea of a god is meaningless / nonsensical.

And I have heard it spoken that "Science is agnostic" - in that it can not disprove the existence of god.

So am I atheist or agnostic?

I know I'm not religious, but I'm just trying to understand the boundary between the two non-religious options.


Thanks. :D
 
It's just a label. It is confusing to try and categorize a wide range of opinions into one word. Some fervently believe there is no God, others just happen not to include the concept in their worldview.
 
i look at an Atheist as someone who not only doesnt believe in God, but does not believe in a higher power, or any depth or substance behind life. someone who thinks that when it's all over we rot in the ground. i know this isnt a politicaly correct definition, but thats what comes to mind.
 
Sarkus said:
This may have been asked before, and if so I apologise but I can only search through so many posts before it gets irksome. :)

d__ exploring is always cool. you can ask same questions more than once, and have what i call re-insights. insights about the same but of a different quality

Anyhoo - what is an "Atheist"?
Reading through the various posts on religion in this forum, I can see variations in peoples' assumptions of what atheists are.

Do they believe that there is no god, or do they merely not believe that there is a god.

d__just let define the two terms 'athiest' and 'agnostic'
'athiest': 'disbelief in the existence of a god'
'agnostic: one who holds that we know nothing of things beyond material phenomena-that a First Cause and an unseen world are things unknown nd some (would add) unknowable' (Chamber's dict.)

I am fully aware that most gods are unprovable concepts by their very nature, but I consider myself atheist - as I do not have a belief in a god.
However, I also know that as far as science is concerned, and the scientific method, the idea of a god is meaningless / nonsensical.

--d--i'd say more so 'mechanistic' science would say that

And I have heard it spoken that "Science is agnostic" - in that it can not disprove the existence of god.

So am I atheist or agnostic?

I know I'm not religious, but I'm just trying to understand the boundary between the two non-religious options.


Thanks. :D
Click to expand...

It's a really interesting question and synchronisticall coincides with what i have been wondering about!

whcih is: HOW can the people of the scientific method who insist on evidence ACCEPT confirmation of Direct Experience?

what do i mean by Direct Experience? From my research i understand Direct Experience as inspired by hallucinogenic plants and substances to be our species primal understanding of spirituality, which--and this is a most IMPORTANT point--is not separate from matter and yet also is transcendent

but i dont want to get too carried away with that for now. your question is is you athiest or agnostic?

well as the definitions show, they both will not accept a spirutal reality, unless 'KNOWN'

but the problem is this, regarding a mechansitic scientific outlook, which i am guessin you have?...is that the very CRITERIa of 'scientific evidence' as acquitred by scientific method demands that sensual data is NOt acceptable

so it seems to me a complete IMPASSE for the twain to meet, if the one insisting 'evidence' according to scientific method doesn't or wont understand the impossiblity of what they demand for conifrmation of the EXPERIENCE of spirituality
 
a piss poor interpretation, simon.you were doing alright until, you said "any depth or substance behind life", that bit is back to front.
an atheist cares more about people and living, that an religious pillark could.
it's that very fact that we have only have one chance at life, before we rot. that makes our lifes richer.
we dont wish to kill our human brothers in the name of a god, we know that would deprive that person of there only chance.
see this http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44535
and from this threadhttp://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40943I took the following.

What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being.


Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable.


Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not "prove" the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should.


But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason.


Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity.


Isn't it possible for reason to err? Yes, reason is fallible, but this calls for a more diligent and conscientious use of reason, not its abandonment. Our eyesight may occasionally fail us or lead us astray, but this does not mean that we should blind ourselves or walk with our eyes closed.


But don't people need to believe in a god? No. First and foremost, a person needs to know the truth, for this is the basic means by which we function successfully in the world. To say that a person needs to believe in the irrational is a prescription for disaster.


Is atheism immoral? Far from it. An honest, carefully examined conviction can never be immoral. On the contrary, the scrupulous use of one's reason is a supreme virtue.


How can there be meaning and purpose to life without a god? This is a matter of personal responsibility. Only you, the individual, can decide whether to live your life with meaning and purpose. Pushing the responsibility onto a mysterious god is an escape, not a solution.


Why is atheism important? Atheism is important because it is reasonable, and reason is of crucial importance in human affairs. Atheism is an alternative to the morass of irrational, antimind doctrines found in various religions.


Why, then, should I consider atheism? Because you owe it to yourself to examine the issue of religious belief carefully and to reach the best judgment you can. Never, never doubt the efficacy of your mind. Never allow others, through pressure or intimidation, to cloud your judgment. If you decide that atheism is a reasonable position, then adopt it with pride and dignity. Always remember that your mind is your most precious characteristic. Do not abuse it through slavish conformity to religious doctrines. with thanks to G.H.Smith.
 
sarkus you stated this "And I have heard it spoken that "Science is agnostic" - in that it can not disprove the existence of god.
and nor would it need to, at the moment to science god/gods do not exist, he who asserts a thing exist, has to prove a thing exists.
 
Perhaps many atheists, like me, come to their conclusions not by the scientific method, but by intuition derived from personal experience. I believe the scientific method is the best thing for understanding certain kinds of problems, but it's important to recognize it's limitations.

Simonbubly,
What usually comes to mind regarding atheism is negative, due to them being a misunderstood minority. I'm aware of an aspect of atheism that acknowledges the depth inherent within all existence. To say that depth requires belief in the supernatural is to lessen the depth inherent in the nature that science reveals. For instance, a flower is beautiful, but if we zoom in to study the cell structure, that is beautiful, too. The complex relationship between the flower and it's pollenators is more beauty that might never have been known by the casual observer.

Duendy,
Creative use of capitol letters recently, or is your keyboard broken?

The complex nature of nature could be expressed with the metaphor of a being, but I think it's more like a song, a tune, a resonance, that can be more aptly described by mathematics. One day the unified field theory will be solved, and the essence of the universe (verse-poem-song) will be seen like musical notation.

-when it's all over we rot in the ground-
We certainly do, unless we turn into a kind of soap, but that's another story. What we never seem to notice is how wonderful rotting really is. In dead space, nothing rots. Rotting is the process whereby we return to the ecosystem, where it happens all over again. It is performed by a myriad of creatures essential to all life on Earth. Only in the most myopic view is it a tragedy.
 
Here are a couple of definitions sometimes used:

Weak Athiest : The concept of god is highly unlikely and i live my life as if (he) does not exist. The likelihood of said god existing is so remote as to be effectivly non existant

Strong Athiest : God does not exist
 
i look at an Atheist as someone who not only doesnt believe in God, but does not believe in a higher power, or any depth or substance behind life.
Click to expand...

Generally correct with the first bit, not so correct with the second given that 'higher power' could simply relate to the president/prime minister, and way way off with the third part. It's a common, but odd statement made by religious people. Why need there be a guy hiding in the clouds for life to have meaning or 'depth'?

someone who thinks that when it's all over we rot in the ground.
Click to expand...

"think" is the wrong word. Speaking for myself anyway, I know we rot in the ground. Need I prove it to you?

An atheist is one who simply does not believe in a god/s. To quote Stephen F Roberts:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
 
The "a-" prefix in "atheism" and "atheist" is the negative prefix in Greek, and it means simply "non-," "not," or "anti".

A"theist" is one who has some belief in a deity or deities.

"ism" is the belef in (or in this case, the belief of believing against theism) and "ist" means one who takes that anti- stance.

Atheist means, anti-theist, or anit-themism. So basically, atheists do not belief in a God or gods.
 
The dissection of a word does not necessarily provide the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

As an atheist, I find no rational reason to believe that a deity exists or does not exist. Logically, if A cannot be proven to exist, I cannot believe in A, nor can I believe in not-A. The discussion is meaningless.
 
Sarkus,

It is very simple. There are only TWO positions, one has a belief in a god or gods and the other does not. Theism or atheism.

If you cannot say with conviction that you believe in a god then you are an atheist.

But try this link anyway. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
 
Athiest or not, we are being our god. And part of the scenario of life is that we will never be able to explain it, that is why we evolve, there is room for learning.

Athiesm was the name given to a non-believer during (what I see as) a time of quite barbaric outlooks on life. People killed in the name of their religion and would cast their hate upon those whom did not follow the same beliefs.

If you ask me, Athiest could be just as important as those who create their god, because they accept the world before them, with their own eyes and perceptions.
 
Athiesm is a statement of what you are not. Like saying you're not a truck driver. Nothing else should be inferred.
 
To put things a different way, the atheist has chosen the label for herself based on what she understands by the word. For myself, for instance, it seemed a stronger philosophical position for me to call myself atheist, rather than agnostic. This is because I don't believe there is a God, not because I'm anti-God, or hate God or have specific issues with religion. I do have those issues, but not as strongly as, say, Richard Dawkins. At the same time, although I clearly see the obvious logical position - that everything has a natural explanation and that therefore God itself is a complex object that requires a natural explanation - I also personally believe that the ULTIMATE cause of the Universe may well lie forever beyond comprehensive scientific explanation, in which case I suppose he can't be ruled out. But I prefer not to see that as reason to change my designation to "agnostic".

So I call myself atheist, but was a little shocked and surprised that some people here characterise all atheists as "God-haters", which is certainly not true.
 
Cris said:
Sarkus,

It is very simple. There are only TWO positions, one has a belief in a god or gods and the other does not. Theism or atheism.

If you cannot say with conviction that you believe in a god then you are an atheist.

But try this link anyway. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the link, Cris - very helpful and informative.
Maybe you should make it a "sticky" for the Religion forum?
 
Silas said:
To put things a different way, the atheist has chosen the label for herself based on what she understands by the word. For myself, for instance, it seemed a stronger philosophical position for me to call myself atheist, rather than agnostic. This is because I don't believe there is a God, not because I'm anti-God, or hate God or have specific issues with religion. I do have those issues, but not as strongly as, say, Richard Dawkins. At the same time, although I clearly see the obvious logical position - that everything has a natural explanation and that therefore God itself is a complex object that requires a natural explanation - I also personally believe that the ULTIMATE cause of the Universe may well lie forever beyond comprehensive scientific explanation, in which case I suppose he can't be ruled out.

d___Notice here how you say 'he'. what this says to me is that although athiests calim to knot believe in 'God', they still though harbour patriarchal notions of what they HAVe rejected. I.e., the patriarchal version of a male sky god. Thus having rejected that dogma they then fail to see what that dogma had supplanted itSELF. which was the more ancient idea of Goddess, and ENSPIRITED matter.
Not realizing that, or dimissing, it, they cleave to the idea of the dogma that usurped that earlier more ancient undertanding and haveing thwon THAt out choose materilistic science as their new belief. again not realizing that the tenets Of materiliatic science come straight from the church. ie., that matter is mechanical and lesser than 'supernatrual'. then when they throw the patriarchal dogma of the supernatrual out they are inevitably left with 'dead matter' which they then feel they have the right to do with as they see fit. Including animals that thjey now believe are mere machines.
Are you getting me?

But I prefer not to see that as reason to change my designation to "agnostic".

So I call myself atheist, but was a little shocked and surprised that some people here characterise all atheists as "God-haters", which is certainly not true.
Click to expand...

(((((((((((((((((((((How do you know your not, if you still haven't understood where the whol;e 'God' myth came from?
 
Uh, I have understood where the whole 'God' myth came from, thank you duendy. Just because the common conception of God arose from a myth does not preclude the coincidental existence of an actual Uncaused Cause to the Universe. After all, the Universe does exist, and it has been scientifically proved to have an origin (ie not to have existed indefinitely in the past). This question would no longer arise if the Steady State Universe model had been shown to be accurate, but that is not the case. The Universe, then, was caused - and the way it was caused is possibly out of the reach of scientific investigation - which returns you to a position of Agnosticism. But I retain the title of Atheist because I'm more comfortable with it - since the Cause of the Universe does not expect worship nor should be held directly responsible for things that happen on Earth (like the tsunami, for instance).
 
Last edited:
Silas said:
Uh, I have understood where the whole 'God' myth came from, thank you duendy. Just because the common conception of God arose from a myth does not preclude the coincidental existence of an actual Uncaused Cause to the Universe. After all, the Universe does exist, and it has been scientifically proved to have an origin (ie not to have existed indefinitely in the past).

d__but this is not a new idea. anceint myths also had models that claimed the universe came into existence..ie., Orphic idea of an 'egg' and hindu of the Brahmic breathing out--which after a period with breath in, etc. Though i know you wil say that that's not scientific, i am still seeing the science-explanation/interpretation as mythic too

This question would no longer arise if the Steady State Universe model had been shown to be accurate, but that is not the case. The Universe, then, was caused - and the way it was caused is possibly out of the reach of scientific investigation - which returns you to a position of Agnosticism.

d__yes it gives us the mystery of who caused the cause and what pre-existed the cause

But I retain the title of Atheist because I'm more comfortable with it - since the Cause of the Universe does not expect worship nor should be held directly responsible for things that happen on Earth (like the tsunami, for instance).
Click to expand...

i see. but you still said 'he' in the last post which was what prompted me to reply. ie., the assumption -however-tenuous that the main causer is a 'he'., ie., 'God'. That pre-sumption--even from an athiest--would prsuppose a 'creator' rather than the Goddess mythis idea of creation being born from the darkness/void. a NATURAL event

do you see what i mean. i will try and simplify it (not being patronizing, i find it difficult to articulate at the moment)

That IF you have given up on A 'causer' behind, which agnostically-as you admit-canNOT be known, do you though STILL
entertain that a probably causer is a 'He'--ie., the bibical 'God/creator'. I.e., that you are AWARE of dropping THAT idea? is that clear?
 
duendy said:
i see. but you still said 'he' in the last post which was what prompted me to reply. ie., the assumption -however-tenuous that the main causer is a 'he'., ie., 'God'. That pre-sumption--even from an athiest--would prsuppose a 'creator' rather than the Goddess mythis idea of creation being born from the darkness/void. a NATURAL event
Click to expand...
No - now you're injecting some strange kind of nonsense into what I've said. We're not arguing the existence of God here, but the nature of atheism. I'm sorry, I was brought up with the paternalistic God image and I believe most of my readers have been as well. So when I talk about God I use the image that I believe most people will recognise and understand. I'm sorry but calling one "theory" a God theory and the other theory a "Goddess" theory is, in my view, pseudointellectual New Age-y claptrap. A "Natural" creation of the Universe (which is what I believe in) is by definition not involving any gods, male, female or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top