Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

Where did the notion that only strong atheists should be called atheists originate anyway?

The notion of 'weak' atheism was popularized only in the 1990's due to Internet (alt.atheism newsgroup). Its first occurance in writing is in 1976. 'Implicit' atheism was first identified as a concept (again, in writing) in 1979 by George Smith. Before then, these terms were not THE use.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuisDantas]

Makes sense. I guess I underestimated the level of rejection of Atheism before the 1970s.

 

[Willamena]

"I don't know" is the agnostic. That's what Falvlun expressed.

The atheist is "I don't believe."

No. That is the "strong atheist". The "atheist" is "I neither believe nor don't believe". I have explained this so many times now I'm beginning to think it will never sink in. Either that or you're just pretending to not understand it.

I understand what you say, Artie. It's just that "I don't believe" it.

It's okay to disagree with Artie.

 

[ArtieE]

I understand what you say, Artie. It's just that "I don't believe" it.

It's okay to disagree with Artie.

"What is Atheism? How is Atheism Defined?:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point."

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes

Then you have an "uncommon understanding of atheism". I will stick with the common one.

 

[Falvlun]

I've heard people argue convincingly that they have no beliefs at all. I myself often claim not to know anything, to have no knowledge.

If pressed to the wall, I may start talking about my Best Guess Yet (BGY), expressed as a percentage, regarding various truth claims. My BGY regarding the historical Jesus has dropped from 52% to around 18% just in the past couple of years. In casual conversation I might claim that I don't believe in the historical Jesus, but that would just be shortcut talk, like talking about "the sun rising" rather than "the sun appearing to rise as the earth rotates from dark side to light side."

It's my observation and conclusion that most people understand about 'the sun rises' being shortcut language but do not understand about the other. They think that beliefs really exist, along with their opposite, unbeliefs. Opposite states, with no gray in the middle.

Hey, get outta my head! I see it all as percentages too. If you think something is just as likely as not, then you are 50/50. Once you start getting into 60/40 range, I think that's when people usually start referring to it as a belief, albeit a weak one. Very rarely are we 100% sure of anything, and yet we still have things we refer to as "beliefs".

 

[Falvlun]

The definition of agnostic is "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." What the heck has that got to do with number 2? If I wrote agnostic in #2 and somebody consulted a dictionary you think they would understand what an atheist is!?

Note that I wrote "popular", not "technical" definition. In popular culture, to the average English speaking American, the word "agnostic" means "someone who does not know whether God exists or not," literally, someone who is on the fence about God's existence.

We are not lumping #2 and #3 together because they are different. We use two different names for them. #2 is "atheist" number 3 is "strong atheist".

This is not actually how most people advocating your position see it. They see the word "atheist" as encompassing every person who does not actively hold the belief that god's exist. You can then sort those people into different groups of weak and strong, but all are considered atheists.

Notice the extra word "strong"? That is because both an "atheist" and a "strong atheist" has an absence of belief in gods, therefore "atheist" but the "strong atheist" has in addition a "disbelief in gods", hence the term "strong". I don't find this confusing but logical and rational. Why do you find it confusing and why do you think people are that easily confused?

If there are 3 groups of people, why not have 3 names for them? Why is it so important to you to squish two groups together?

Also, I'm actually not a fan of the weak vs strong distinction, since it's not really hard or fast. I prefer the "agnostic" vs "gnostic" (technical sense, here) qualifier since that is much more descriptive.

An agnostic atheist is a person who believes that gods do not exist but does not claim to know this. They are not 100% certain about their belief.

The gnostic atheist is a person who claims to know that gods do not exist. They are 100% certain about their beliefs.

Much more clearly delineated, imo.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course. Absence of belief (not holding a belief) and non-belief (holding the belief that the first belief is wrong) are two completely different things.

An elevator goes up (theism), the elevator stands still (atheism), the elevator goes down ("strong atheism"). You really don't understand the difference between those and find it meaningful?

I understand that you changed what I said. I do find that meaningful. And telling.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. No more no less.

Hence, carrots are atheists when you stretch the semantic literalism of this to a ridiculous extreme. Same with infants.

Now, I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe that infants are atheists. That's your prerogative. All I'm saying is that, for me, it's silly and meaningless, as it adds no information regarding infants. Same with carrots.

 

[Almustafa]

Atheists neither believe nor disbelieve the description given in religions.They don't go to something else. Theists go to something else. Atheists stay where they've always been. Just think of a simple conversation:

Two people from the same village meet after a while. One says: "I have started believing in God and become a theist will you also become a theist?" The other one says "No, I'll just live as I've always lived with no change whatsoever." And so you have one theist and one atheist.

this is true at first, but as soon as a being(who happens to not have a religion) opposes a theist, they instantly leave the comfy place of non-action, and enter in as a bias position thus nullifieing the idea that atheism is natural, becaus it has to be instigated by theism...

 

[LuisDantas]

this is true at first, but as soon as a being(who happens to not have a religion) opposes a theist, they instantly leave the comfy place of non-action, and enter in as a bias position thus nullifieing the idea that atheism is natural, becaus it has to be instigated by theism...

Considering that the alternative is to submit to theism, I don't see how that could make sense, sorry.

 

[Almustafa]

well in the beginning we are all just people...
then philosophers asked each other about intelligent design, then people took sides

in order for atheism to exist there has to be theism to reject...
no matter what our feeling are on the subjects, it can not be the "natural"state of man because the natural state of man is to not care either way...

 

[ArtieE]

Note that I wrote "popular", not "technical" definition. In popular culture, to the average English speaking American, the word "agnostic" means "someone who does not know whether God exists or not," literally, someone who is on the fence about God's existence.

What has that got to do with theism or atheism? Theism and atheism without any words in front or after is about belief not knowledge.

This is not actually how most people advocating your position see it. They see the word "atheist" as encompassing every person who does not actively hold the belief that god's exist. You can then sort those people into different groups of weak and strong, but all are considered atheists.

Yes. That is exactly what I've been explaining. I have just not included the word weak so as not to confuse you even further. "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point." Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes You notice that it says "Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak". Sometimes. Not all the time or most of the time. I just didn't use the word "weak" to avoid confusing you further.

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism?

These are of course totally different from theism or atheism. Agnosticism isn't about belief at all. It's about knowledge. Theism or atheism is about belief. Two different animals. If you put different words in front of theism and atheism you are no longer dealing with theism or atheism but something else namely agnosticism.

 

[ArtieE]

I understand that you changed what I said. I do find that meaningful. And telling.

I changed what you said because what you said was wrong. I corrected it. I hope that told you something? Do you now understand that what you said was wrong? Do you now understand the difference between what you said and what is right?

 

[ArtieE]

Hence, carrots are atheists when you stretch the semantic literalism of this to a ridiculous extreme. Same with infants.

Now, I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe that infants are atheists. That's your prerogative. All I'm saying is that, for me, it's silly and meaningless, as it adds no information regarding infants. Same with carrots.

Sorry, but the only silly and meaningless here are your posts. They add no information on atheism at all only show an unhealthy obsession with vegetables. This thread is called "Atheism does not exist" and is not about vegetables. Are you being paid by some company for every time you mention carrots?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point." Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism?

I'm curious why you keep posting such sites. Are you aware that we atheists and agnostics do not accept our Truth spooned to us from Above?

What do we care about the opinions of the people who write your favorite websites?

 

[Willamena]

Makes sense. I guess I underestimated the level of rejection of Atheism before the 1970s.

If I understand correctly what you mean, "Atheism" is not just a word.

 

[ArtieE]

well in the beginning we are all just people...
then philosophers asked each other about intelligent design, then people took sides

in order for atheism to exist there has to be theism to reject...

No it doesn't.

no matter what our feeling are on the subjects, it can not be the "natural"state of man because the natural state of man is to not care either way...

And that is atheism. Believing in gods is theism, disbelieving in gods is "strong atheism". Atheism without anything in front or with "weak" in front means neither believing nor disbelieving and is the default state. That's what people did before gods were invented and that's what atheists continue to do.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey, get outta my head! I see it all as percentages too. If you think something is just as likely as not, then you are 50/50. Once you start getting into 60/40 range, I think that's when people usually start referring to it as a belief, albeit a weak one. Very rarely are we 100% sure of anything, and yet we still have things we refer to as "beliefs".

I'm not so sure that we actually have beliefs. (But don't despair. I'm not so sure about anything at all.)

Whenever I think real hard about beliefs, everything goes foggy on me. What does a belief look like? Could a surgeon find it with a sharp-enough scapel? Could Big Brother change our beliefs into more pleasing ones? I mean, really change them; not work at propagandizing us in the hope of changing them.

I'm a bit more comfortable with the verb. I believe that Margaret Thatcher was kinda witchy sometimes. But do I have a belief in Thatcher's witchiness? I dunno. That ground doesn't feel quite so solid to me.

 

[Willamena]

...the natural state of man is to not care either way...

I thought the natural state was reason.

It's silly to say we don't care about things. We wouldn't be arguing in this forum if we didn't care.

Edit: Oh, my bad. The Natural State is Arkansas.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, but the only silly and meaningless here are your posts.

Says the person who calls babies atheists.

So, are infants more, or less, atheistic than the mushed carrots they're eating? Heck, if we're going to have a silly conversation, then let's do it up.