"Atheist"--the term itself

[Ouroboros]

I'm frequently 'forcibly baptised' by other atheists though so I'm not sure if I still number amongst the heathens

"Onward Christian soldiers...."

LOL! I know exactly what you mean. As a sexed up atheist (naturalistic pantheist), I'm considered a theist by many atheist, and an atheist by most theists. Perhaps I should be called limboist...

 

[Laika]

Exactly!



Interesting? Yes, I agree with you there. Especially since -- in my view, at least -- there seems to be a "political" agenda that is often enough involved in insisting that atheism means and only means "active disbelief". In fact, I don't think this thread, or so many similar threads, would go on for as long as they do if none the participants wanted to score "political" points against atheists. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.

its been a reoccuring conflict on RF for a while. there was that spell of frantically "defining atheism" last year for a few months and there is a split between those who define it as "lack of belief" and "rejection of belief". there are significant implications to accepting one definition or another and it's rumbling on. it's not simply theists trying to score political points but is something like an inter-atheist "holy war" over who or what is the "true" atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only people who are aware of a concept of god.

Why should that matter?

It says so on your profile and you have said it many times on the forum.

I think I'm an atheist, but you calling me one implies that you think I'm an atheist, too, but I don't meet your criteria.

So you disbelieve; you refuse to accept as true.

You seem to be operating from a strange definition of "refuse". I'm willing to believe in any god as soon as I hear a compelling case for it; how is this a "refusal"?

I refuse to believe many arguments for gods, but that isn't the same as refusing the gods being argued.

And I haven't "refused" anything at all for all the gods that people believe in but I've never heard of (i.e. most of them)

You hold a belief as regards the existence of god(s); you don't have an absence of belief.

How can I hold "a belief as regards the existence of god(s)" when I don't hold a concept of "god"?

I consider gods to be defined as a set, not by any particular characteristics. Basically, humanity has a list of gods. For a very small number, I say "that can't possibly exist"; for others, I say "if that exists, it isn't for the reasons I've been given"; for even more, I say "I don't know enough about that to evaluate it"; for the vast majority, I don't say anything at all, because they're unknown to me. Out of those four categories, I only hold a belief about the gods in the first one. I hold beliefs about the arguments for the gods in the second category, but as I've said, that isn't the same thing as holding a belief about the gods themselves.

 

[prometheus11]

Or atheists are trying to score points by starting threads like these (Prometheus started this thread you know). If it's a dead topic, then it shouldn't be discussed by neither side. Also, what's interesting is that there are two or three atheists on the either side of this debate in this thread. Not all atheists agree on the "lack of belief" definition.

And what's even more funny is that I'm actually a Strong Atheist when it comes to the old traditional anthropomorphic Christian God. I don't just lack belief in Jesus. I disbelieve in that jesus-God. I actively believe that the traditional Christian God doesn't exist at all. So that makes me in this particular case a stronger atheist than most of the "lack of belief" atheists. On top of that, I lack belief in most or all other gods that I don't know about, but I don't consider myself an atheist based on such loose grounds. It's a useless label if it was just lack of belief. We all lack belief in the majority of gods, so what's the difference except that the one that lacks belief in all gods has to make a strong and active point about not having an active belief.

I'm not trying to "score points." (I don't even know what that's supposed to mean). I was seeking lively discussion, and it appears that I was successful.

Yes, not all atheists agree on the term. MOST DONT. That was part of the purpose of this thread. To explore those differences. I've also never insisted that others define the term the way I do. I have merely explained my view and the reasons for that view.

I also have explained my position to the degree that from now on I only need quote a previous post or other of mine.

Yes, you are correct that it interesting, humorous, ironic and the rest of it. It's so obvious I don't know why it should be pointed out. The moon rose last night, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists reject or are unconvinced by all god beliefs/concepts they have encountered.

So a person who has not been convinced of anything and has never encountered a god belief (e.g. a baby) would be an atheist by your definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not trying to "score points." (I don't even know what that's supposed to mean). I was seeking lively discussion, and it appears that I was successful.

And neither am I!!! I'm not trying to score points either. If you look at my post, it was in response to Sunstone and not you. And you can also see that I didn't say you were trying to score points.

Yes, not all atheists agree on the term. MOST DONT. That was part of the purpose of this thread. To explore those differences. I've also never insisted that others define the term the way I do. I have merely explained my view and the reasons for that view.

Which means that those with a different view have the right to express them, and neither side is trying to score points.

I also have explained my position to the degree that from now on I only need quote a previous post or other of mine.

Yes. I know and understand your view completely and have no interest in continuing it with you.

Yes, you are correct that it interesting, humorous, ironic and the rest of it. It's so obvious I don't know why it should be pointed out. The moon rose last night, too.

Not sure what point your sarcasm is trying to make there, but I really don't care.

 

[prometheus11]

its been a reoccuring conflict on RF for a while. there was that spell of frantically "defining atheism" last year for a few months and there is a split between those who define it as "lack of belief" and "rejection of belief". there are significant implications to accepting one definition or another and it's rumbling on. it's not simply theists trying to score political points but is something like an inter-atheist "holy war" over who or what is the "true" atheism.

Why are you defining this in negative terms?

Isn't it appropriate and reasonable for a group to discuss, debate, and solidify what they mean by terminology within the group? Wouldnt you find it perfectly reasonable for coin collectors to debate what, exactly, qualifies as a "turkey?"

 

[prometheus11]

And neither am I!!! I'm not trying to score points either. If you look at my post, it was in response to Sunstone and not you. And you can also see that I didn't say you were trying to score points.


Which means that those with a different view have the right to express them, and neither side is trying to score points.


Yes. I know and understand your view completely and have no interest in continuing it with you.


Not sure what point your sarcasm is trying to make there, but I really don't care.

You mention me as starting the thread in the same sentence that you discuss point scoring. No one else was named.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

I was being serious, not sarcastic.

Why the hostility?

 

[Ouroboros]

You mention me as starting the thread in the same sentence that you discuss point scoring. No one else was named.

It was rhetorical. How can it be that people try to get scores when they're just responding to a thread, unless the thread is started to get scores as well. It goes both ways. My point is that there's no scores, political or otherwise.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

By what? Scoring points? Ask Sunstone. It wasn't my view. I responded to him regarding his view of scoring points. And what I did was to put it into perspective of that if someone opens the door to a discussion/debate, it's no more points by the responders than there is from the initiator.

I was being serious, not sarcastic.

If you say so, but it sure looked like it was.

Why the hostility?

I'm not hostile, but why are you?

 

[prometheus11]

It was rhetorical. How can it be that people try to get scores when they're just responding to a thread, unless the thread is started to get scores as well. It goes both ways. My point is that there's no scores, political or otherwise.


By what? Scoring points? Ask Sunstone. It wasn't my view. I responded to him regarding his view of scoring points. And what I did was to put it into perspective of that if someone opens the door to a discussion/debate, it's no more points by the responders than there is from the initiator.


If you say so, but it sure looked like it was.


I'm not hostile, but why are you?

Oh, I was not aware that the term had been "opened" before you used it. I agree that it's not about scoring points because I have no idea how that would work.

I hope you understand how I would think you were referring to me since I was only named (there's what, maybe three words or so between my name and "scoring points?")

As to the sarcasm thing, I guess I dont get it because I've had people misunderstand my sincerity for sarcasm here and there over the years.

How about a even trade? You weren't referring to me about scoring points and I wasn't being sarcastic?

 

[Ouroboros]

How about a even trade? You weren't referring to me about scoring points and I wasn't being sarcastic?

Totally fair. Thanks for the explanation from your view. We're all good (even if we differ in opinion about the atheist definition )

 

[prometheus11]

Totally fair. Thanks for the explanation from your view. We're all good (even if we differ in opinion about the atheist definition )

Thanks. Agreed.

 

[Augustus]

Why should that matter?

For the same reason I am unconvinced by the argument that babies and rocks are atheists.

I think I'm an atheist, but you calling me one implies that you think I'm an atheist, too, but I don't meet your criteria.

I very much believe you meet my criteria.

If you meet my criteria of atheist and meet you own criteria too, why should I consider you anything other than an atheist?

You seem to be operating from a strange definition of "refuse". I'm willing to believe in any god as soon as I hear a compelling case for it; how is this a "refusal"?

It's a perfectly normal usage.

To refuse doesn't mean you are not willing to reconsider given new evidence; it means at this moment in time you are not willing to accept something as true.

Bob: You went out with your ex last night and came home at 7am and didn't call to tell me!
Jane: Nothing happened!
Bob: I refuse to believe you would do that if you weren't up to no good!
Jane: I lost my phone then my car broke down. Look here is the receipt from the garage. See the time stamp 5.45am! It took 3 hours to fix look at how much work they had to do!
Bob: Ok sorry darling, I believe you. I shouldn't have got angry. Sorry.

How can I hold "a belief as regards the existence of god(s)" when I don't hold a concept of "god"?

Because you frequently argue about god(s) on the internet in a way that indicates some degree of understanding of the word 'god', yet you do not believe that god(s) exist and call yourself an atheist.

I am very confident that you hold beliefs regarding the existence of god(s) according to what I believe about beliefs.

Ultimately we are going to end up discussing definition after definition after definition. And as I said back at the beginning of the thread, "Language does not exist; it is an abstractum... language is use of language".

 

[Laika]

Why are you defining this in negative terms?

Isn't it appropriate and reasonable for a group to discuss, debate, and solidify what they mean by terminology within the group? Wouldnt you find it perfectly reasonable for coin collectors to debate what, exactly, qualifies as a "turkey?"

Having had this discussion many times, I am resigned to the existence of two groups on the forum who are often hostile to one another. the reason for the scope of differences is because of the two definitions make very different claims on the nature of knowledge/what constitutes belief and the role of ethics in atheism/ the consequences of dis-belief.

it is not simply a discussion of terminology, as the conflict over definitions conceals much deeper questions over what constitutes an "atheist identity". I don't enjoy these discussions at all, as it often boils down to personal attacks. reasoned argument does not seem to be sufficient for members of either group to change sides or to reach common agreement. instead it goes on, often the same people having the same arguments. For me, atheism is the beginning of the questions as to how we live without an afterlife, without a higher power to judge right and wrong, good or evil, what the meaning and purpose of life is without a creator or an ordained path by god or organised religon. it is therefore central to my beliefs. And yet, repeatedly I have been put into a position where I have been told that these have nothing to do with atheism as atheism is only lack of belief and everything you believe and represent is an irrelevance.

yes, you could discuss the meaning of the terminology within the group. but that assumes there is one group. there isn't- there is at least two. And in most discussions it has ended with one group trying to tell the other what they believe. it isn't about "solidifying" a term, but enforcing an identity. So I try and "live and let live" and avoid these discussions as best as I can.

 

[prometheus11]

Having had this discussion many times, I am resigned to the existence of two groups on the forum who are often hostile to one another. the reason for the scope of differences is because of the two definitions make very different claims on the nature of knowledge/what constitutes belief and the role of ethics in atheism/ the consequences of dis-belief.

it is not simply a discussion of terminology, as the conflict over definitions conceals much deeper questions over what constitutes an "atheist identity". I don't enjoy these discussions at all, as it often boils down to personal attacks. reasoned argument does not seem to be sufficient for members of either group to change sides or to reach common agreement. instead it goes on, often the same people having the same arguments. For me, atheism is the beginning of the questions as to how we live without an afterlife, without a higher power to judge right and wrong, good or evil, what the meaning and purpose of life is without a creator or an ordained path by god or organised religon. it is therefore central to my beliefs. And yet, repeatedly I have been put into a position where I have been told that these have nothing to do with atheism as atheism is only lack of belief and everything you believe and represent is an irrelevance.

yes, you could discuss the meaning of the terminology within the group. but that assumes there is one group. there isn't- there is at least two. And in most discussions it has ended with one group trying to tell the other what they believe. it isn't about "solidifying" a term, but enforcing an identity. So I try and "live and let live" and avoid these discussions as best as I can.

Wow. I've not had those sorts of discussions. I've met/known quite a few crass/rude atheists, but I have not seen such behavior as you describe when discussing terms within atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

Only people who are aware of a concept of god.

Why do you feel this way? Honestly, it seems to make little sense if any, as "atheism" is lacking belief in any God or gods. Barely anyone on earth (if anyone) is aware of every concept of God, so if it is a requirement to understand every single God concept, no one could be considered an "atheist". I think the only definition that makes logical sense is merely lacking belief in any deity, as it does not require contemplation of every single god.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you feel this way? Honestly, it seems to make little sense if any, as "atheism" is lacking belief in any God or gods. Barely anyone on earth (if anyone) is aware of every concept of God, so if it is a requirement to understand every single God concept, no one could be considered an "atheist". I think the only definition that makes logical sense is merely lacking belief in any deity, as it does not require contemplation of every single god.

Because it describes a state of mind, not an objective truth. It doesn't require knowledge of every god concept, just an idea of what you personally consider to be a god.

Some people believe the sun is a god; I consider these people to be theists. They have the right to define their own beliefs. However, I don't consider the sun to be a god, despite the fact that I very much believe the sun exists. Nobody able to understand sun lacks belief in the sun. Almost everybody disbelieves that the sun is a god though.

We form our own ideas about what constitutes a god based on our own subjective preferences as there is no objective standard. Even self professed atheists who claim the 'lack of belief' definition reject the idea that the sun is a god whilst believing in the existence of the sun. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Seeing as atheism is a statement of belief and belief is subjective, it is up to the individual to decide what they believe to be a god or not to be a god.

An atheist is somebody who does not believe in the existence of anything that they subjectively consider meets the criteria of being a god regardless of the fact that they may be open to reconsidering their views given additional evidence.

That's all disbelief is (at least in my book).

 

[Laika]

Wow. I've not had those sorts of discussions. I've met/known quite a few crass/rude atheists, but I have not seen such behavior as you describe when discussing terms within atheism.

I've had discussions on the relationship of atheism and communism. As an ex-communist this is an area I know very well, but have found that no matter what evidence I provide it has not been enough to shift people's position. it has been a rather bizzare experience as its one of the first times I've seen people professing reason reject evidence based on technicalities. The emotionally charged nature of the debates means that the "absence of belief" group will say something along the lines of "communism was a political ideology and therefore was not a reflection of atheism". thats strictly speaking not 100% true and its a little more complicated than that. saying communism is a political ideology only is applying a secular seperation between personal and political beliefs which does not exist in communist ideologies because it was a "worldview". of course, because atheism is not "one" set of beliefs, communism is not representative of atheism as a whole. whilst I can perfectly understand why people don't want to associate with it, the sheer "irrationality" of the responses has left me stumped. it's when your dealing on a subject you know well, that you spent years reading about and researching and can therefore present huge amounts of information on and still have people give you one-line responses insisting that you are mistaken that you start questioning what actually is going on. for me of course with that background, it is actually rather personal to have it thrown back in your face.

my wording in my reply may have been a tad strong, but its a reflection of my incomprehension of the conflict between the two groups and how angry I have been in the past.

 

[leibowde84]

Seeing as atheism is a statement of belief and belief is subjective, it is up to the individual to decide what they believe to be a god or not to be a god.

I'm sorry, but the use of circular reasoning like this is frustrating. The argument at hand is whether or not "atheism" is necessarily a "statement of belief". I would strongly argue that it is not always a belief, as many self-designated atheists do not actively believe anything about God's existence. They are merely unconvinced that any deity exists. And, "atheism" is the "lack of belief in all/any deity", so your sun example doesn't make much sense. If one believes in a deity's existence, they are a theist. If one does not believe in the existence of any deity, then they are an atheist. Because "theism" is an immensely general term, "atheism" should be even more so, as the "a" prefix merely means "without theism". Thus, any human being who is without a belief in any deity can rightly be considered an "atheist".

It shouldn't be confusing either, because, as with theism, atheism as subcategories (strong, weak, gnostic, agnostic, militant, etc.).

 

[outhouse]

Ultimately we are going to end up discussing definition after definition after definition. And as I said back at the beginning of the thread, "Language does not exist; it is an abstractum... language is use of language".

This is a cop out.

While the definition is widespread it is not so vague that we can let imagination and fiction define the concept.

We implicit and explicit atheism that most definitions fall under.

And if you don't know that is personal issue, not a lack of definition by those who wish to pervert it