How do you define "Athesim"?

[Debater Slayer]

I personally don't see how I can "reject" that which I'm not even aware of; i.e., the many god concepts that I wasn't taught about. It seems unnecessary to me that I'd have to learn about all of them before I can say that I don't believe any of them to exist and have the attributes that they are claimed to have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I personally don't see how I can "reject" that which I'm not even aware of; i.e., the many god concepts that I wasn't taught about. It seems unnecessary to me that I'd have to learn about all of them before I can say that I don't believe any of them to exist and have the attributes that they are claimed to have.

I agree. That's the point I'm trying to make.

To reject all gods, I'd either have to reject them all based on the attributes of the category "gods" or reject them each individually.

The category "gods" can't be coherently defined, so that option is out. Rejecting them all individually is an impossible task.

This is why I think that the "rejection of gods" definition of atheism has a built-in monotheistic mindset... Or at least one that takes monotheism as the "main" type of god-belief, because the only way you could have actual atheists with a "rejection" model is if the process goes something like "if you reject God (singular, proper noun) then you're an atheist... unless you believe in some other type of god(s)."

This is why I find it especially baffling to hear this definition argued by polytheists, because AFAICT, any attempt to actually put that definition into practice would mean putting polytheism in a sort of second-class position.

 

[F0uad]

What do you think "rejection of god" means? I was just saying what it means to me when I read it, and if that's not the connotation you want to give, then you may want to rethink your wording.

Well they Reject the notion that a God exist simple as that.

I agree, to a point. Just remember that faith and fact are not the only two options. While we may not know for sure whether God exists, or does not, that doesn't mean we only come to our conclusions based upon faith. We can come to it based upon reason and available evidence, and come to an educated conclusion. This goes for both atheists and theists.

Well that didn't make sense since evidence leads to fact i said both fact and faith not only faith.

That's what I am saying. There really isn't a breakdown of atheism. It involves only one question: does god exist or not? It is possible that there are atheists who don't believe in evolution, or if they do believe in evolution, believe that morals derive from something else. The only thing that atheists necessarily agree on is that they don't have the belief that gods exist.

Well i never met such Atheists or Agnostics however i think your right here.

Take theism. That too only involves one question: Does god exist or not? You are a theist; you believe that god exists. Would it be fair, then, for me to claim that you believe that Jesus was God?

Nope.

(... no, because theism does not imply Christianity any more than atheism implies evolution).

I know but is Evolution mostly not a excuse, let me rephrase is evolution not used to deny an design/designer? Anyway your right that evolution is not part of Atheism but it certainly exist among the Atheists if i am correct..

 

[Willamena]

I agree. That's the point I'm trying to make.

To reject all gods, I'd either have to reject them all based on the attributes of the category "gods" or reject them each individually.

The category "gods" can't be coherently defined, so that option is out. Rejecting them all individually is an impossible task.

It's not that complicated. The god concept that is coherent is the one you refer to when you say, "To reject all gods..." meaningfully in a sentence.

 

[Willamena]

If a person believes in one god but hasn't "received knowledge" of polytheistic beliefs, can we call them monotheists? Should we just say that *they're* "ignorant and innocent"?

We are only required to reject a concept based on what we know, not what we don't know.

What's wrong with "ignorant of polytheistic beliefs"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are only required to reject a concept based on what we know, not what we don't know.

So babies *are* atheists, then? Anyone who knows no god concepts has rejected all the god concepts he knows: his set of "god concepts I have encountered but not rejected" is empty.

What's wrong with "ignorant of polytheistic beliefs"?

That doesn't speak to the issue. Is he a monotheist despite his ignorance?

If so, why can't someone be an atheist despite ignorance? AFAICT, the only difference between the terms is the number of gods believed: an atheist rejects all gods; a monotheist believes in one god and rejects all others. If in the case of a baby, you say that since he's ignorant of the concept of god(s), he's not an atheist, why wouldn't we say that a monotheist without a *full* understanding of the concept of god(s) isn't a monotheist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not that complicated. The god concept that is coherent is the one you refer to when you say, "To reject all gods..." meaningfully in a sentence.

By "all gods" in that sentence, I mean "all individual members in the set 'gods'", not "all individuals that meet the objective criteria for godhood." I make no claim about there being any common characteristics shared by all members of the set "gods" other than the fact they have been put into that set.

Edit: maybe an analogy will help illustrate what I'm getting at: say that we're trying to establish that there are no living Norwegian tennis grand masters (just to pull a category out of the air - for argument's sake, let's say it's true). We can define the list: we can look up the seeding lists and find out all the Norwegians who ever achieved grand master status. But how would we go about affirming that they're all dead... i.e. rejecting that they're all alive?

If things were different, we might be able to reject them as a category: if the country of Norway had ceased to exist 1000 years ago, or if tennis hadn't been invented yet, then we could safely conclude that no living Norwegian had ever played it. However, we can't do this. Instead, we'd have to go through the list one by one and go "person 1 is dead? Check. Person 2 is dead? Check." ... And so on until we get through the whole list.

... but since none of the criteria for getting onto the list "Norwegian tennis grand masters" speak to whether a person on the list is alive or not, the mere fact that a person is on the list isn't enough for us to know whether or not he or she is dead.

Does that make my point clearer?

 

[Willamena]

So babies *are* atheists, then? Anyone who knows no god concepts has rejected all the god concepts he knows: his set of "god concepts I have encountered but not rejected" is empty.

How do you figure? On what basis would a baby reject anything? Babies don't mistake words for truth.

That doesn't speak to the issue. Is he a monotheist despite his ignorance?

Not if he's rejected the concepts that he does know.

If so, why can't someone be an atheist despite ignorance? AFAICT, the only difference between the terms is the number of gods believed: an atheist rejects all gods; a monotheist believes in one god and rejects all others. If in the case of a baby, you say that since he's ignorant of the concept of god(s), he's not an atheist, why wouldn't we say that a monotheist without a *full* understanding of the concept of god(s) isn't a monotheist?

No, an atheist rejects the concept "god."

 

[Willamena]

By "all gods" in that sentence, I mean "all individual members in the set 'gods'", not "all individuals that meet the objective criteria for godhood." I make no claim about there being any common characteristics shared by all members of the set "gods" other than the fact they have been put into that set.

Then the common characteristics you communicated are those of "the set of 'gods'."

 

[outhouse]

I dont fond rejecting deities or knowledge of them as a prerequisite.

atheism is simple, lack of theism



if one day all societies rejected all theism 100%, would only those who could rememeber theism be considered atheist, or all of them?

 

[Willamena]

if one day all societies rejected all theism 100%, would only those who could rememeber theism be considered atheist, or all of them?

If all societies rejected theism, there would be no atheists, no one to take a stand that contrasts with theism.

 

[idav]

If all societies rejected theism, there would be no atheists, no one to take a stand that contrasts with theism.

In a society where most people reject mythological creatures, we don't find it necessary to actually reject belief in those type of characters. Atheists take that one step further. The only reason atheism is being pressed as a belief is because they are the minority. From theists perspectives, atheists are rejecting something that is absolutely true, while atheists see it as another myth among a very long list.

 

[Willamena]

In a society where most people reject mythological creatures, we don't find it necessary to actually reject belief in those type of characters. Atheists take that one step further. The only reason atheism is being pressed as a belief is because they are the minority. From theists perspectives, atheists are rejecting something that is absolutely true, while atheists see it as another myth among a very long list.

How does that address what I said? (And your first sentence makes no sense.)

 

[idav]

How does that address what I said? (And your first sentence makes no sense.)

It was addressing the notion of no theists equals not need for atheism. Just the fact that the majority believe use the term theism is the only reason atheism is seen as a belief. What is the word for not believing fictional characters are real and does it really require belief and actual rejection of a concept to not believe something fictional?

 

[Draka]

If all societies rejected theism, there would be no atheists, no one to take a stand that contrasts with theism.

This. Without theism there would be no atheism either. Two sides of the coin. If one side were to disappear then the other side would as well.

 

[Willamena]

It was addressing the notion of no theists equals not need for atheism. Just the fact that the majority believe use the term theism is the only reason atheism is seen as a belief. What is the word for not believing fictional characters are real and does it really require belief and actual rejection of a concept to not believe something fictional?

It's the only reason atheism is a concept (rather than belief).

What is the word?

 

[idav]

What is the word?

I don't know a word is even necessary. When someone describes something as ficticious, whether it is belived as true has already been decided. Which makes it a silly question to ask if someone believes a fictional character as true.

 

[RichW]

Atheology would still be a theology.

"belief" requires either faith and/or proof

common definition only applies generic implications like an arrow pointing toward a school of thought

as a sine , Atheist and Theist would be polar opposites with agnostic the median.

"disbelief" also requires faith and/or proof

 

[Willamena]

I don't know a word is even necessary. When someone describes something as ficticious, whether it is belived as true has already been decided. Which makes it a silly question to ask if someone believes a fictional character as true.

So just describing you, for instance, as fictional means your state is decided?

 

[outhouse]

If all societies rejected theism, there would be no atheists, no one to take a stand that contrasts with theism.

one does not need to take a stand

you either have theism, or you dont