Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Kenny]

23 have voted in the poll in the OP, have you bothered to read it? Obviously not, you prefer to scour the internet for examples that fit your biased agenda.

A poll defines a definition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

a more "modern and adjusted" definition? You still propose more the agnostic position. Who ranks them? Does that mean that the specific word is correct?

No... I go back to etymology.

.Etymology, when done properly, refutes you.

 

[John53]

We need a song.

I'm an atheist and I don't care
I'm big and fat, and I've got no hair

 

[Subduction Zone]

A poll defines a definition?

Yes, actually. Definitions describe usage. What better way to know the usage of a word?

Definitions are not written in stone. The meanings of words change as the language changes.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

Atheism can encompass a belief, but that does not mean it is a belief. A basic grasp of language would help people stop falling onto that trap, and the wording was neither hubris or accident...

If atheism is a belief, as some are trying to claim, then atheists, like myself, who simply don't believe a deity exists, are not atheists. Atheism can't exclude atheists from it's definition, that's the point some seem unable or unwilling to understand.

 

[F1fan]

Creationism should not be taught in schools, no. Thank God I live in post enlightenment Europe, where such an idea would be unthinkable.

If you had a significant portion of citizens and public officials who were in a position of negating science, and inserting creationism, you and others would fight that effort strongly.

The key word in your penultimate sentence, it seems to me, is “respectful”. Perhaps you don’t see the appallingly aggressive and disrespectful tone some of your fellow atheists routinely bring to every debate. Check out the wording of the OP above, by way of a ready illustration.

If someone is aggressive and disrespectful that is a character issue, and not relevant to the issues debated.

I’m quite happy to allow atheists to define their beliefs or lack thereof in any way they like. I’m free to laugh at the total lack of self awareness some of them display, though.

As long as there is clarity and a coherent point. I think pressuring people to be more respectful is appropriate.

 

[Sheldon]

A poll defines a definition?

I cited the poll in response to this from you:

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is?

It seems you couldn't resist twisting it into yet another straw man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

a more "modern and adjusted" definition? You still propose more the agnostic position. Who ranks them? Does that mean that the specific word is correct?

No... I go back to etymology.

The etymology?

"Atheist" comes from the Greek word "atheos," i.e. "without gods" or "godless." Still doesn't support your position.

I'd still love for someone proposing any sort of "rejection of God/gods" definition for atheism to spell out exactly how the word is defined so that it reflects how the word is used in real life:

- theists aren't atheists
- atheists exist

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cited the poll in response to this from you:



It seems you couldn't resist twisting it into yet another straw man.

Of course usage is what determines a definition. A poll would be a valid way to find what the current usage is.

 

[Yazata]

Seeing how you were the one who just complained about people redefining terms to win arguments, I'm not sure why you're buying into this recent redefinition of "gnostic" as "someone who claims to know something" and not the specific religious movement.

Gnosis is the Greek word for 'knowledge' and has been since ancient times. Those (they were a very diverse group) who called themselves 'gnostics' were calling themselves something like 'those who know'. Those with sacred knowledge in other words. Those with knowledge of higher realities.

Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), who coined the word 'agnostic', added the Greek prefix a- meaning 'not' or 'without' to 'gnostic', to create a word meaning something like 'those who don't know'.

Huxley famously described its origin this way:

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art not part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" - had, more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant... To my great satisfaction the term took."

 

[F1fan]

I am not wrong. Do you disbelieve God exists?

Which one?

 

[F1fan]

But, again, it isn't my definition but that which I found on multiple sites.

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is? IMV, according to definitions, anything less than "there is no god" is agnostic (by definition)

Kinda like theists getting together and decide which God exists. Christians can begin with themselves, like is Jesus God or not, they don't know.

But to your point, there are MULTIPLE contexts and definitions that the word "atheist" covers. So there is no one size fits all.

Atheists tend to be responding to theist's claims. How an atheist responds, and what their position is, is what is relevant. It's all dependent on what far out claims a theist will make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gnosis is the Greek word for 'knowledge' and has been since ancient times. Those (they were a very diverse group) who called themselves 'gnostics' were calling themselves something like 'those who know'. Those with sacred knowledge in other words.

Yes: the word "gnostic", which refers to a specific religious movement, has its origins in the word "gnosis", which was a general term for knowledge.

Doesn't invalidate my point, though. Would you use the word "catholic" to mean "universal" while ignoring its baggage?

Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), who coined the word 'agnostic', added the Greek prefix a- meaning 'not' or 'without' to 'gnostic', to create a word meaning something like 'those who don't know'.

Huxley famously described its origin this way:

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art not part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" - had, more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant... To my great satisfaction the term took."

Did you bother to read Huxley's definition? The way you're using the term is nothing like how he defined it when he coined it.

 

[Valjean]

That'a not really the way language works though.

When you have a disputed term, the one with the widest definition doesn't automatically become the correct one. The word just has more than one usage.

That is the way definitions work. A definition doesn't describe or clarify anything, it's just a quick way of distinguish something from all other things, through a feature unique to the thing.
Words do have multiple meanings, and are used in different ways, which is why specialists use technical definitions, and in serious discussions interlocutors agree on definitions and meanings of the things being discussed.

Obviously though, they are just 2 different definitions of the term that developed with different philosophical underpinnings with no reason for one being The Definition™

With any disputed terminology, ultimately it's just disputed and people have their own justifications for using it in their preferred manner. No matter how much people try to wrap it up in a veneer of neutrality or objectivity, it just reflects a purely subjective personal preference that might be based on a deeper philosopical argument or might be purely whimsical.

Yes, I've heard "atheist" used in all sorts of ways, including heretic and non-Christian. A lot of atheists do state definitely that there is no God, but that comprises lack of belief, as well.

It seems like modern usage has become more focused, as religiosity has decreased and and belief has become more politicized. Atheists themselves themselves, teachers of philosophy, &c usually specifying the 'lack of belief' aspect as definitive, these days.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But, again, it isn't my definition but that which I found on multiple sites.

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is? IMV, according to definitions, anything less than "there is no god" is agnostic (by definition)

@Yazata just kindly provided the definition of "agnostic," written by the person who coined the term.

Agnosticism is a positive assertion in its own right; it isn't just "I don't know" or "I'm not sure."

 

[Kenny]

So, to sum it up. We can choose a variety of definitions and all of them are right, at least right for the person who has their own definition. And 10 years from now, all of them could be wrong.

Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, to sum it up. We can choose a variety of definitions and all of them are right, at least right for the person who has their own definition. And 10 years from now, all of them could be wrong.

Got it.

No. Usage determines the definition. But to be fair one should go to the group that is being defined for a definition.

Do you think that it would be fair for non-Christians to define what Christianity is? You might find yourself to be man without a religion if that was allowed.

 

[F1fan]

So, to sum it up. We can choose a variety of definitions and all of them are right, at least right for the person who has their own definition. And 10 years from now, all of them could be wrong.

Got it.

Are you referring to the many hundreds of Gods theists believe true?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, they're atheists by default. Atheism and theism form a MECE set: everyone belongs to exactly one of those two categories. Nobody is neither and nobody is both.

No they are not. Says who? This is purely arbitrary, and doesn't match reality. They are neither. They don't hold any beliefs at all. This is like saying a mouse is an atheist. Is your cat an atheist? What about the tree in your yard? Is that an atheist because they have to be in one group or the other, right? This is absurd. Pure nonsense.

You know what this all is? It's a Christian hangover. The church would label everyone in terms of the ingroup or the outgroup, one or the other. This is not reality.

No, it's an analogy to try to get you to think about your argument a bit.

It only made me think you don't know how to make a better argument.

That's trouble for you, then, because we would need the term "god" to defined concretely enough to reject every god in order to reject every god. If you can't do this, your approach to defining "atheist" doesn't work.

You're the one who claims to not believe God exists, so clearly you have an idea already in your mind to reject. To deny that, is absurdity as well. "I don't know what it is, but I sure don't believe in it!" Say what??

So now you're saying that atheists don't have to reject gods in general, but only "the Christian West God"?

No, what I said is that when I press most atheists to explain or share what idea of God it is that they think of when they say they don't believe in it, it's that mythic-literal, traditionally theistic deity of the Christian West. At least, that's been the majority of my experience. I'd be happy to be proven wrong with hearing something else than what I have.

Well, no. It sounds like you believe in something that you consider a god, which makes you a theist.

You prove my point.

Just what I touched on before: it sure sounds like you're trying to imply that a person has to do the impossible to be an atheist.

I wish you would have read what I've posted three times so far. It explained it so well. It even addressed this very point. But you missed it. Once again, for what it's worth Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

"This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question."​

As you can see, it does not need to be defined concretely. The very fact that you call yourself an atheist, means you have an idea of what that God is. "I don't know" is not atheism. As I mused above, ""I don't know what it is, but I sure don't believe in it!" Say what?? "

Why do you keep trying to narrow the conversation to God-with-a-capital-G? Theism and atheism are about gods, not just about your specific god.

You see, you think I have a "specific god". You don't have any idea what I actually believe, but you sure do have an idea of what you think God is. The reason I use a capital G, is because I am speaking of a Universal, or the Absolute, not a deity form. I also capitalize Nature, when I am speaking of that All of the natural world, or Life, with a capital L, or Spirit with a capital S. These are not gods. These are Universals, or the All. It doesn't have anything to do with some guy in the sky sort of deity form.

I don't have a single image of what "god" means. I define "god" in terms of two discrete lists: one of things that are definitively gods and another in terms of things that are definitively not gods. For instance, the divine messenger Mercury is a god; the divine messenger Gabriel is not. Thor is a god; Superman is not. I don't see any rhyme or reason in why these things are or aren't gods, so I'm not able to define the term "god" in terms of general characteristics. IMO, a god is an object of worship, but there's more to it than that, because some objects of worship are not gods.

Thank you for confirming what I knew already. You do have an idea of what gods are. I don't believe in those either. I guess that makes me an atheist too.

Agnosticism isn't neutral. Agnosticism is the assertion that the existence of gods is unknowable. It's not a default position.

Sure, I agree, and already said so in that post, I believe, or at least a subsequent one. Children are neither theist, nor atheist, nor agnostic. They are just children. The have no conceptualizations to work off, and should not be claimed as the default "belief", when there is no belief at all, positive, negative, or undecided. They are children, and leave it at that.

 

[Windwalker]

Which one?

The one you are thinking of when you say you don't believe in God. Like I said in another post just now, "I don't have any idea of what God is, but I sure don't believe it it!", is an absurd thing to say. Wouldn't you agree? Where is the honesty in such a position?