A poll for our Atheist members.

[Quagmire]

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

As an aside, maybe, but not for the purposes of clouding the issue.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I think that was an erroneous comparison. It would more accuratley be like saying that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was divine, which is true. It is an extremely general term, like atheist or theist, so it should be defined as such. Atheist and Theist are opposites. Theism is "the belief in the the existence of aa god or gods. Atheism is "the lack of belief in god or gods". There are subcategories of both for good reason, as these are both very general terms (just like "Christian"), but the meanings should not be ignored.

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.

Yes, but "explicit atheists", "strong atheists", "weak atheists", etc. are all "atheists". Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but "explicit atheists", "strong atheists", "weak atheists", etc. are all "atheists". Wouldn't you agree?

To me, while all categories may represent people calling themselves atheists, the atheist/atheism has only one particular meaning that is apparent in each category: disbelief in god or gods. For the strong atheist, "There is no god/are no gods," is said in the same context as, "I don't believe in god/gods"; for the explicit atheist, "There goes a man who doesn't believe in gods," blatantly implies atheism; for the weak atheist, it's simply, "I don't believe in gods."

 

[outhouse]

the explicit or hard atheist is not the one with any knowledge claim,

Im not following you here.

Explicit atheism is a conscious rejection of a deity concept, correct?

One needs knowledge to make a decision?

 

[leibowde84]

To me, while all categories may represent people calling themselves atheists, the atheist/atheism has only one particular meaning that is apparent in each category: disbelief in god or gods. For the strong atheist, "There is no god/are no gods," is said in the same context as, "I don't believe in god/gods"; for the explicit atheist, "There goes a man who doesn't believe in gods," blatantly implies atheism; for the weak atheist, it's simply, "I don't believe in gods."

But we can refer to all of them as atheists right? All that is required is a lack of belief, not disbelief.

 

[Quagmire]

Thank you for the response.



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

In other threads, I might try and argue with you about that.

But for the purposes of this thread all I'm trying to do is get an idea of where most of our non-theist members stand, ie., what their non-belief amounts to in practical terms.

What I mean is; I don't see a problem with anyone who makes a positive claim about anything as long as they don't try to pass it off as a neutral stance, that is: one that doesn't require any substantiation, in the next sentence.

Mainly the sandbaggers I was talking about in a previous post.

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.





None at all.



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.

I find religion fascinating (or I wouldn't be here) but that's not where I usually go to look for God.

I beleive that the most any religious texts can offer us are clues that other seekers may have found along the way.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But we can refer to all of them as atheists right? All that is required is a lack of belief, not disbelief.

I think atheist is quite a broad term which includes lack of belief and disbelief.

 

[Willamena]

But we can refer to all of them as atheists right? All that is required is a lack of belief, not disbelief.

As "lack of belief" is better stated as "disbelief," then sure.

 

[Willamena]

Im not following you here.

Explicit atheism is a conscious rejection of a deity concept, correct?

One needs knowledge to make a decision?

Yes. One needs knowledge to make a decision, but not knowledge of god. One can use knowledge of logic, or knowledge of science, or even knowledge of nature.

 

[leibowde84]

I think atheist is quite a broad term which includes lack of belief and disbelief.

I agree. That's my point. Every person who simply lacks a belief in God can accurately be classified as an atheist. Simple as that. Obviously, those that disbelieve in God also lack a belief in God, so they would be included as well.

 

[leibowde84]

As "lack of belief" is better stated as "disbelief," then sure.

That is incorrect. "Disbelief in God" is an active belief that God does not exist. "Lacking a belief in God" merely means that one does not believe in God, not that they positively claim God doesn't exist. Mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannott be treated as equivalentt to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true, according to the rules of logic.

 

[Willamena]

That is incorrect. "Disbelief in God" is an active belief that God does not exist. "Lacking a belief in God" merely means that one does not believe in God, not that they positively claim God doesn't exist. Mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannott be treated as equivalentt to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true, according to the rules of logic.

Disbelief also merely means that one doesn't believe in god. As you've stated.

All hairs aside, rejection is that little voice that says, "no."

 

[leibowde84]

Disbelief also merely means that one doesn't believe in god. As you've stated.

All hairs aside, rejection is that little voice that says, "no."

It is important in linguistic terms, as "disbelief" is much more difinitive than "lacking belief". Disbelief is denial of the possibility that God exists. Lacking belief could just be someone who hasn't been presented with sufficient evidence, but is still open minded about the whole thing.

 

[Willamena]

Lacking belief could just be someone who hasn't been presented with sufficient evidence, but is still open minded about the whole thing.

This is what's significant to me: if there's no little voice saying, "no," to the idea of "god," then what makes this person an atheist?

 

[leibowde84]

This is what's significant to me: if there's no little voice saying, "no," to the idea of "god," then what makes this person an atheist?

They don't believe in God. This girl I'm seeing now is an atheist. She has literally never really thought to much about God existing, as she was raised by atheist parents, who were very open about their world-view. She, however, would never say that she believes that God doesn't exist ... as she doesn't have any reason to think that currently. More specifically, I think she is an agnostice, but, since she lacks belief in God, she can certainly be classified as an atheist as well.

Some atheists just don't really think about the existence of God that much.

 

[Uberpod]

I do not believe there is a god. However, I do not have definite knowledge about anything not existing. That notion makes no sense to me. Thus, the poll lacks an accurate category for me.

 

[leibowde84]

I do not believe there is a god. However, I do not have definite knowledge about anything not existing. That notion makes no sense to me. Thus, the poll lacks an accurate category for me.

Why wouldn't you fit into answer "a"? You merely lack belief (a.k.a. you don't believe that God exists).

 

[Uberpod]

Why wouldn't you fit into answer "a"? You merely lack belief (a.k.a. you don't believe that God exists).

I contend that there is no god. I believe that as strongly as I believe that I don't have a third parent.

 

[leibowde84]

I contend that there is no god. I believe that as strongly as I believe that I don't have a third parent.

So, then you do actively believe that God does not exist? Then you fit into "b" I think. Right?

 

[Uberpod]

So, then you do actively believe that God does not exist? Then you fit into "b" I think. Right?

I do not believe we "know" things definitely. Even eye witness testimony is flawed. Maybe my parents used a surrogate to gestate me and I do have a third parent. I strongly believe I only have two, however.