Atheism does not exist

[Sha'irullah]

I don't know if I was responded to 20 or so pages ago and i'm not gonna check.

But just to reiterate. Atheism is anyone who doesn't believe in god. Gnostic Disbelief is not a prerequisite to lack of a belief.

The question posed was the certainty of that belief actually. The issue was that most atheists have used the question as a means to bash and troll :sarcastic.

But getting back on topic. What I was looking for was the definitive terms for soft and hard atheism. I have heard many atheist claims that they "know there is no god" which is a bold move like a theist saying he or she "knows there is a god".
This is the fundamental issue which was to be addressed

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The question posed was the certainty of that belief actually. The issue was that most atheists have used the question as a means to bash and troll :sarcastic.

But getting back on topic. What I was looking for was the definitive terms for soft and hard atheism. I have heard many atheist claims that they "know there is no god" which is a bold move like a theist saying he or she "knows there is a god".
This is the fundamental issue which was to be addressed

Well its a Gnostic and Agnostic scale just like any belief. People who are more certain lean Gnostic and those that aren't sure lean Agnostic. Though the overwhelming vast majority of Atheists seem to be Agnostic Atheists. I haven't met anyone yet who was a Gnostic atheist. I"ve seen them on youtube and media and such but never have I met in person someone who was a "hard atheist".

Though there is a very big difference between being an Anti-theist (which is what I think most theists think of when they think of a "hard atheist") and a Gnostic Atheist. A Gnostic Atheist is 100% sure that even the tiniest concept of a god does not exist in any way at all. An anti-theist believes that religion or at least many mainstream religions are harmful to the society and thus try to fight it. Being a Gnostic atheist isn't required to be an Anti-theist and I'm assuming vice versa.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know if I was responded to 20 or so pages ago and i'm not gonna check.

But just to reiterate. Atheism is anyone who doesn't believe in god. Gnostic Disbelief is not a prerequisite to lack of a belief.

Sorry Monk, I'll respond to you. I hadn't been around to respond and then when I came back you weren't around either so it didn't seem worth the effort.

 

[Falvlun]

Well its a Gnostic and Agnostic scale just like any belief. People who are more certain lean Gnostic and those that aren't sure lean Agnostic. Though the overwhelming vast majority of Atheists seem to be Agnostic Atheists. I haven't met anyone yet who was a Gnostic atheist. I"ve seen them on youtube and media and such but never have I met in person someone who was a "hard atheist".

Though there is a very big difference between being an Anti-theist (which is what I think most theists think of when they think of a "hard atheist") and a Gnostic Atheist. A Gnostic Atheist is 100% sure that even the tiniest concept of a god does not exist in any way at all. An anti-theist believes that religion or at least many mainstream religions are harmful to the society and thus try to fight it. Being a Gnostic atheist isn't required to be an Anti-theist and I'm assuming vice versa.

This is actually a rather good summation.

I did a poll a while back asking whether people considered themselves Agnostic theists, gnostic theists, agnostic atheists, or gnostic atheists. (I did not include a group for people who had no beliefs either way.) Theists tended to be gnostic and atheists tended to be agnostic by about the same amount.

 

[Willamena]

Gnostic Disbelief is not a prerequisite to lack of a belief.

But it helps.

The gnostic is the one who knows, not that God doesn't exist, but the way in which our knowledge only represents a real world. Our knowledge isn't the real world. Dharmic religions (Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zen, etc.) understand this as a term called "maya."

These religions believe that the world is "without form," and void, so to speak, which is to say that the world exists but it isn't actually split up into the words we use to represent it. Maya is the idea that the form of things, which is to say the "edges" or outline or delineation or definitions, is arbitrary. Maya says that "this part" of the world is "a chair" and the rest of the world isn't--well, in truth I sit wherever. A chair is nothing more than what a chair does or means, and what a chair does or means is what a human does with it and means about it, and calls that "chair." People can recognize something in the world and call that "chair," and that's alright, it's expedient for communicating, but a "chair" is nothing more than what the word means--to then take the word and believe it is the reality is maya.

Maya is us believing that all our words are the world. We move in words, we do actions as words; we move amongst the words, we do all our word-actions amongst the "things" we've identified of the world; and we are the movers amongst words, there is a word-"me" moving. When that happens, when we literally "live" in words, we can forget that there is a real world. "God" is no less a word, just a word, because what that word represents is not missing or lacking from the real world, but it is the "not-a-word" world. No definition will suit it, no words can express it, no idea can capture it.

 

[Falvlun]

But it helps.

The gnostic is the one who knows, not that God doesn't exist, but the way in which our knowledge only represents a real world. Our knowledge isn't the real world. Dharmic religions (Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zen, etc.) understand this as a term called "maya."

These religions believe that the world is "without form," and void, so to speak, which is to say that the world exists but it isn't actually split up into the words we use to represent it. Maya is the idea that the form of things, which is to say the "edges" or outline or delineation or definitions, is arbitrary. Maya says that "this part" of the world is "a chair" and the rest of the world isn't--well, in truth I sit wherever. A chair is nothing more than what a chair does or means, and what a chair does or means is what a human does with it and means about it, and calls that "chair." People can recognize something in the world and call that "chair," and that's alright, it's expedient for communicating, but a "chair" is nothing more than what the word means--to then take the word and believe it is the reality is "maya."

"Maya" is us believing that all our words are the world. We move in words, we do actions as words; we move amongst the words, we do all our word-actions amongst the "things" we've identified of the world; and we are the movers amongst words, there is a word-"me" moving. When that happens, when we literally "live" in words, we can forget that there is a real world. "God" is no less a word, just a word, because what that word represents is not missing or lacking from the real world, but it is the "not-a-word" world. No definition will suit it, no words can express it, no idea can capture it.

Are you familiar with Heidegger, because this reminds me a lot of his philosophy. I only got through about half of his book Being and Time-- it was a heavy slog, and I got lost in all the different terms he was inventing-- but it was an interesting concept.

I don't know if I find it completely useful to live as if "things" don't really exist except as we define them as "things", but I don't think it's the worst thing to keep in mind that there is a component of ourselves in the reality around us.

 

[Willamena]

Are you familiar with Heidegger, because this reminds me a lot of his philosophy. I only got through about half of his book Being and Time-- it was a heavy slog, and I got lost in all the different terms he was inventing-- but it was an interesting concept.

I don't know if I find it completely useful to live as if "things" don't really exist except as we define them as "things", but I don't think it's the worst thing to keep in mind that there is a component of ourselves in the reality around us.

You know, I bought that huge, huge, book and was entirely intimidated by the size of it. Haven't read it yet. I believe it's known that Heidegger was not unfamiliar with eastern religions, though.

Maya is. Words are. It's not necessary to live as if words don't exist.

PS: Any "component of us in the reality around us" is maya. That's the ticket.

PPS: It's not necessary to shuck Maya to get to a real world beyond. We do "live." It's just lovely to get to know Maya, to understand its perspective in order to appreicate it and work with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what sort of atheist the person on the street would relate to. That wasn't really what I was referring to when I said that.

It was more the relation between someone who takes language at face value, and someone who makes arcane arguments with it. It's hard to relate to someone you don't trust because their arguments come off as slippery and misleading.

Are you talking about your hypothetical atheist who argues he doesn't have any beliefs about gods? If so, I think he's completely irrelevant to the question of how we define the word "atheism".

 

[Willamena]

Are you talking about your hypothetical atheist who argues he doesn't have any beliefs about gods? If so, I think he's completely irrelevant to the question of how we define the word "atheism".

No, Falvlun is talking about the concept "atheism." It has an inhernet atheist, someone who has adopted its perspective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, Falvlun is talking about the concept "atheism." It has an inhernet atheist, someone who adopts its perspective.

I'll let Falvlun answer the question herself, thanks.

 

[Falvlun]

Are you talking about your hypothetical atheist who argues he doesn't have any beliefs about gods? If so, I think he's completely irrelevant to the question of how we define the word "atheism".

I don't know why you are so hostile to the fact that there were two separate, though loosely connected, debates going on.

We can return the focus to the definition side of the debate. My previous comment had to do with the "I don't believe in gods" phraseology part of the debate.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

there is no such things as atheist. Only unbelievers and believers.

*runs to mirror*

:cover:

Hey you're right. I can't see an atheist at all.
Are you sure you want to go with believers and unbelievers though? You could just call us infidels, heretics or heathens, like back in the good old days.

 

[Sculelos]

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it means you don't like the idea of God.

Big difference. Animals for example don't have any idea of death or God yet they just do what animals do until they die.

 

[jmn]

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it means you don't like the idea of God.

Actually its the rejection of the idea. Not the dislike of the idea, for there is nothing to dislike.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it means you don't like the idea of God.

Big difference. Animals for example don't have any idea of death or God yet they just do what animals do until they die.

That's simply not accurate.
For example, it is quite possible to be an atheist, but like the idea of God. Whether you like the idea or not is irrelevant.

Perhaps you are confusing atheist and antitheist?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it means you don't like the idea of God.

like or dislike has nothing to do with it. This seems to be along the lines of "you are an atheist because you hate god" argument. Both are wrong.

 

[idav]

How much faith can atheists possibly put in an idea of non-existance. Theists are the ones in need presuming something that can be neither denied or confirmed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it means you don't like the idea of God.

This is the first I hear of anyone proposing such a definition for Atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is the first I hear of anyone proposing such a definition for Atheist.

Really? C'mon now...you must hear this commonly enough. It's worded in different ways, but it's not a rare view. It's just a variation of the 'You hate God' myth.

What they mean is that THEY believe in God, we don't, their God should be believed in and the only way you could not believe is to deliberately shun him.

So, we're closing the metaphorical door on God. Rude buggers, ain't we?

 

[Willamena]

What they mean is that THEY believe in God, we don't, their God should be believed in and the only way you could not believe is to deliberately shun him.

I could imagine an atheist who "doesn't like the idea of god," and who is surrounded by like-minded atheist, might also define it this way.