A poll for our Atheist members.

[Bunyip]

Yes, and I don't think lack of belief is mutually exclusive with definite disbelief. I don't have to be unsure if I merely lack belief. For all intents and purposes, I absolutely disbelieve in the existence of elves, dragons, and gods.

Yeah, that is my question - although I seem to be unable to get an answer better than a snide dig.
I do not see the two alternatives as exclusive, and can not seem to get any further clarification.

What is the difference between disbelieving in the imaginary and not having a belief? Seems like merely semantics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless I'm mistaken (and correct me if I am) I've seen you come right out and say "There is no God" several times in the forums.

That would put you in the second group.

So... someone who lives in New York isn't allowed to say that you don't need to live in New York to be an American?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm mainly trying to gauge what most people in here mean when they say "I'm an atheist".

When I say "I'm an atheist", I mean that I lack belief in gods.

I also have other beliefs about gods and religions, but they aren't what makes me an atheist. Heck - I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a belief I hold that isn't also held by at least some theists.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I just straight up don't believe in any of it.

Why should we have to prove that flying clown monkeys from Venus don't exist?

It's absurd.

 

[Willamena]

For me, the difference is knowing.

Is there a different level of knowledge on a scale of 1 to 10 ? once ones knowledge or even "belief for you" gets to say a 10, the certainty level changes from belief to knowledge.

Example. I don't have to believe in gravity, it is there and accepted fully at say a #10.


It is going to come down to word semantics, and its inane at that point.

To me, certainty isn't sufficient for knowledge--there is inherent doubt. Truth is what distinguishes knowledge. But truth isn't possible for the realist, who imagines the really-real world to be merely what is apart from himself.

 

[Politesse]

I feel like "An atheist is someone who simply lacks a belief in gods" is a definition that includes too much. A bit like saying "A Christian is someone who thinks Jesus was really important". In both cases, it is probably an accurate description of most everyone who uses that label, but also "lets in" a lot of people who don't and wouldn't think to. There are plenty of religious traditions that lack a belief in Gods, very but very nearly every atheist I've met is skeptical toward religion altogether, however they define that, not just gods. Hell, I'm not sure I "believe in gods" as such, but I would never describe myself as an atheist. If for no other reason than people would start arguing with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In both cases, it is probably an accurate description of most everyone who uses that label, but also "lets in" a lot of people who don't and wouldn't think to.

Does that make a label inaccurate? The same thing could be said of the label "Canadian" for a lot of Quebec separatists.

There are plenty of religious traditions that lack a belief in Gods, very but very nearly every atheist I've met is skeptical toward religion altogether, however they define that, not just gods.

... and very nearly every American I've met would never want to live in Alaska. This doesn't mean Alaskans aren't Americans.

Hell, I'm not sure I "believe in gods" as such, but I would never describe myself as an atheist. If for no other reason than people would start arguing with me.

... IOW, the main reason you don't use the term is social, not that you think it's inaccurate?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is the difference between disbelieving in the imaginary and not having a belief? Seems like merely semantics.

What works for me is a spectrum with "strong belief" at one end and "strong disbelief" at the other, with "don't know" ( or "don't care" ) in the middle as a neutral position. The spectrum could apply to all sorts of things, not just God.

 

[Quagmire]

Refusal for the definition of implicit atheism verses explicit atheism?

That and this practice I've seen of some people definitively stating that "There is no God" in one post, and then falling back on "Well, you know atheism isn't a claim for or belief in anything, it's merely a lack of belief in deity" when someone asks them for any evidence aside from the obvious lack of evidence (or the lack of obvious evidence).

That's what I meant by "sandbagging" in a previous post.

Even if we accept the definition of atheism as "A lack of belief in deity", someone who makes a definitive statement like "There is no God" is still making a positive claim that would require some sort of substantiation, like any other positive claim.

Lack of evidence is justification for doubt, it can even be reasonable justification for conviction, but it isn't any sort of stand-alone justification for a claim of knowledge of any sort.

 

[Quagmire]

Both.

I'm an explicit strong atheist, who used to believe and made a conscious decision to reject the notion.

But my knowledge level leaves me with a complete lack of belief.

Had to vote other.

Question: are of you of a definite opinion that there is no God of any sort? Because having read a lot of your posts that was the impression I get.

 

[Quagmire]

If it didn't make a difference, we wouldn't have held onto a word for it.

 

[Quagmire]

Yea! I can vote.
"Merely" is such a weasel word. It can make a statement mean such different things.

Voted "other". If there is a god, no human knows anything important on the subject.
Tom

I realized pretty quick that I should have worded the options differently.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, and I don't think lack of belief is mutually exclusive with definite disbelief.

Which is why I included the word "merely", as in "only", as in "to the exclusion of any more specific objections", like everything covered by option 2..

I don't have to be unsure if I merely lack belief. For all intents and purposes, I absolutely disbelieve in the existence of elves, dragons, and gods.

Well there ya go.

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, that is my question - although I seem to be unable to get an answer better than a snide dig.

That's terrible.

I do not see the two alternatives as exclusive, and can not seem to get any further clarification.

None that you're comfortable with anyway.

What is the difference between disbelieving in the imaginary and not having a belief?

The prefix "dis".

I would go fetch the definition for you --- or 3 or 4 --- but so far, apparently, in your world all that would prove is that Wikipedia and every dictionary on the planet are making snide remarks too.

Seems like merely semantics.

Well, it isn't.

 

[Quagmire]

So... someone who lives in New York isn't allowed to say that you don't need to live in New York to be an American?

Sure. They just aren't allowed to say they live in Canada just because it's close by and has a similar climate.

 

[Quagmire]

I feel like "An atheist is someone who simply lacks a belief in gods" is a definition that includes too much. A bit like saying "A Christian is someone who thinks Jesus was really important". In both cases, it is probably an accurate description of most everyone who uses that label, but also "lets in" a lot of people who don't and wouldn't think to.

Try this:

(hypothetical poll)

"As a Christian, do you:

1. Merely believe that Jesus was an important person?

2. Believe he was the son of God and that your eternal salvation is dependent on him?
-----------------------------------------------------

Reading the first option in context with the second option should make it pretty clear what the "merely" is meant to exclude, and that anyone who holds any of the beliefs mentioned in option 2 should choose option 2.

That's why, in context, the options are mutually exclusive.

Same thing here, although for some reason that isn't as obvious as I thought it would be.

Like I said earlier, maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully.

 

[leibowde84]

So you've polled everyone already?

I'm not asking what the term means, I'm asking what people, individually, mean when they use it about themselves.

Why should we consider when the term is used incorrectly? Shouldn't we stress for people to use the term correctly?

 

[outhouse]

Thank you for the response.

Lack of evidence is justification for doubt, it can even be reasonable justification for conviction, but it isn't any sort of stand-alone justification for a claim of knowledge of any sort

But we, those who make claims of knowledge, have evidence, lots of it.

Not only do we have a track record of only man making deities, but the major one's that most follow today that are defined differently. It seems to be a compilation of pagan deities in which no one really disputes their existence.

We also have evidence that only man has redefined these concepts at will. Me personally, I see quite clearly how the god concept was created by previous religions, plagiarized by modern religions, and redefined to mirror cultural needs and mythology at specific times.

Question: are of you of a definite opinion that there is no God of any sort?

None at all.

someone who makes a definitive statement like "There is no God" is still making a positive claim that would require some sort of substantiation, like any other positive claim.

It should definitely be substantiated.

I do that by recognizing how only man defined the concept, in a time when people lived mythology in a much deeper way then today.

Many of these deities took on the role of mans ignorance for nature.

Thunder
Lightning
Earthquakes
Conscious mind
Disease
Mans origins
Floods
Death

And even is attributed to all basic human needs. Survival is a large one, especially in times of war.

Their gods were powerful, because the gods as defined, was nature.

The ability to see past mythology is knowledge.

Lets look at how many different versions there are of the Abrahamic deity, that mirror the people doing the redefining. Had there been only one deity concept that was real, we would expect one universal definition. The fact there is not is strong evidence for a man only creation.

First we had Canaanite deities in polytheism.

Proto Israelites plagiarized, redefined a family of deities, the Father El and the Warrior Yahweh. With Baal and Asherah. Polytheistic.

Israelites redefined the concepts, by turning to monotheism compiling two deities into one, under government rule by King Josiah. A political decision not accepted by all. Monotheism

Hellenist plagiarized Judaism and redefined the concept to be popular in the Diaspora, divorcing Judaism and paralleling the divinity of the living Emperor who was son of god first. Hellenist had a choice, to worship a son of god that was a corrupt Emperor a politician. OR, they could worship the other son of god who's selfless actions were perceived to save your soul.

Then Islam plagiarized both previous religions.

Then later self proclaimed prophets redefined the concepts again and again in multiple cultures.

The real evidence again, that not one has a similar of unifying version of a singular entity.

 

[outhouse]

That and this practice I've seen of some people definitively stating that "There is no God" in one post, and then falling back on "Well, you know atheism isn't a claim for or belief in anything, it's merely a lack of belief in deity" when someone asks them for any evidence aside from the obvious lack of evidence (or the lack of obvious evidence).

Your question was great.

I answered quickly and realized it was much deeper then that, and had to go back and change it as you sort of caught me contradicting myself. I had a little bit of an epiphany.


I agree that the concept needs to be defined better when one makes a statement of any sort of certainty. Making explicit statements and then throwing out implicit without justification is wrong. I would guess context is going to be key here.

 

[Willamena]

That and this practice I've seen of some people definitively stating that "There is no God" in one post, and then falling back on "Well, you know atheism isn't a claim for or belief in anything, it's merely a lack of belief in deity" when someone asks them for any evidence aside from the obvious lack of evidence (or the lack of obvious evidence).

That's what I meant by "sandbagging" in a previous post.

Even if we accept the definition of atheism as "A lack of belief in deity", someone who makes a definitive statement like "There is no God" is still making a positive claim that would require some sort of substantiation, like any other positive claim.

Lack of evidence is justification for doubt, it can even be reasonable justification for conviction, but it isn't any sort of stand-alone justification for a claim of knowledge of any sort.

Just so, and that's significant to understanding that the explicit or hard atheist is not the one with any knowledge claim, it's simply the one making a positive statement. The explicit atheist disbelieves.