Atheism does not exist

[McBell]

The absence of belief is disbelief. You can't say (or it can't be said of you), "I lack belief in a whatever" unless you've somehow been informed about a whatever and found something about it to reject.

There is a difference between not believing something and disbelieving something.
One is active (disbelief) and one is inactive (lacking belief).

 

[steeltoes]

There is a difference between not believing something and disbelieving something.
One is active (disbelief) and one is inactive (lacking belief).

I wonder if I can call myself an atheist when most of the time it is not clear what it is I am supposedly denying.

 

[McBell]

I wonder if I can call myself an atheist when most of the time it is not clear what it is I am supposedly denying.

The word atheist, much like the word Christian, means so many different things depending upon with whom you are speaking that the term is all but useless for honest discussion.

 

[Willamena]

There is a difference between not believing something and disbelieving something.
One is active (disbelief) and one is inactive (lacking belief).

Sorry: I just don't believe that (disbelief abounds).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The word atheist, much like the word Christian, means so many different things depending upon with whom you are speaking that the term is all but useless for honest discussion.

Thanks for saying that. These (interminable) arguments over atheism are fun to follow, but sometimes they remind me of Christians arguing over who is and who isn't a real Christian.

In my view and usage, an atheist is someone who accepts the label of 'atheist' in an apparent sincere manner or someone who seems to me to fit the bill, whether or not he accepts the label.

 

[sonofdad]

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of deities.
This is what all atheists have in common. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in a deity, you're an atheist.
Why do we have to complicate everything?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of deities.
This is what all atheists have in common. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in a deity, you're an atheist.
Why do we have to complicate everything?

I'm not sure what a deity is, exactly. Could you give me a close definition?

Also, to my way of thinking, belief is not a Yes/No question. I don't either believe or not believe. I assign rough percentages to the truth value of things and my percentages of belief change daily as I get more information or clarification.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of deities.
This is what all atheists have in common. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in a deity, you're an atheist.
Why do we have to complicate everything?

I don't know about everything, but I suppose "atheist" inherits some of of inherent difficulties of defining "deity".

 

[jmn]

I'm not sure what a deity is, exactly. Could you give me a close definition?

A supernatural being that is delusively believed.

 

[Willamena]

I don't know about everything, but I suppose "atheist" inherits some of of inherent difficulties of defining "deity".

It really doesn't. Even if my deity is my little left toe, you can genuinely be an atheist.

 

[Titanic]

I spot a Atheist! 100 point's for me!

 

[Titanic]

this thread is really unneeded. We all know atheist's do exist. Now if we will ever figure out if the woman in the sky does?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

this thread is really unneeded. We all know atheist's do exist. Now if we will ever figure out if the woman in the sky does?

Can you tell me whether I am an atheist or whether a theist? I've been wanting to know the answer to that for some years now.

 

[Titanic]

Can you tell me whether I am an atheist or whether a theist? I've been wanting to know the answer to that for some years now.

About just settle for being a agnostic!(like me).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

About just settle for being a agnostic!(like me).

Thanks. But I prefer to remain an atheistic prophet of God.

It keeps people on their toes.

 

[ArtieE]

I think your splitting hairs. Though you are right in the sense that it is a lack of a belief. Though technically when they are introduced to religion and remain an atheist they are at that point having a "disbelief" in god. I don't know of anyone that hasn't at least heard of the concept.

No they don't at that point have a disbelief in god. The pendulum hasn't moved in any direction and nothing has changed from the default state. The pendulum might swing towards theism, or it may swing towards hard/strong atheism. Or it may simply stay perfectly still.

Either way it changes nothing. Belief that there isn't and lack of belief that there is are two different things. They end up at the same place but the causality of how they got there differs greatly. Someone who claims to KNOW there is no god can no further substantiate their position than someone who simply "knows" there is a god.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. These are not opposites.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity. Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.
Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

The problem is that atheism itself is extremely broad. An atheist can be said to be anyone who lacks a belief in any sort of God. That includes people who make the positive claim that God does not exist, the people (like me) who say there’s simply not enough evidence to conclude that God does exist and it would include agnostics. It would also include anyone who just doesn’t really give a toss as well as any being that doesn't have the ability to consider the question.

Various people have tried to subcategorise atheism, agnosticism and theism to try and make some sense of it. A popular one is Richard Dawkins with his spectrum of theistic probability, which makes as much sense as any other system really.

As far as I’m concerned I don’t think I should believe in something unless I have a reasonable amount of evidence to say it exists (and even then, it should be as a probability rather than a certainty). Russell’s Teapot explains this position nicely.

 

[ArtieE]

The absence of belief is disbelief. You can't say (or it can't be said of you), "I lack belief in a whatever" unless you've somehow been informed about a whatever and found something about it to reject.

Of course not. Many people believe in stuff I've never heard about, and I lack a belief in that stuff. I can't disbelieve something I've never heard of. The second I hear of it I can believe in it, stay neutral or disbelieve in it.

 

[sonofdad]

I'm not sure what a deity is, exactly. Could you give me a close definition?

I'm not really sure either. Pretty much every theist you talk to has a slightly different definition, and they're usually pretty fuzzy.
But the general description is something along the lines of an all-powerful being existing outside the bounds of natural realm.
Guess to a certain extent we just have to take it on a case by case basis.

All I can say really is that I have never encountered a description of a deity that I believe to be true. If I ever run into one, I'll stop being an atheist.

Of course someone could point to a tree and say: this is my god. Then I'd be inclined to believe that their god exists, but we gotta draw the line somewhere.

Also, to my way of thinking, belief is not a Yes/No question. I don't either believe or not believe. I assign rough percentages to the truth value of things and my percentages of belief change daily as I get more information or clarification.

The way I generally define belief is a nearly absolute measure of certainty. When I consider something to be proven to me, beyond reasonable doubt, I believe it, otherwise I don't.
It's just semantics really, I just always find "belief" to be such a strong statement that I avoid using it about anything I'm not highly certain about.

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry: I just don't believe that (disbelief abounds).

"Originally Posted by Mestemia
There is a difference between not believing something and disbelieving something.
One is active (disbelief) and one is inactive (lacking belief)."

It's very simple really. There must be many gods you've never heard of. You lack belief in those. If you should hear of them, you can choose to believe in them, stay neutral or actively disbelieve in them.