How do you define "Athesim"?

[waitasec]

So since I have become Atheist and especially, since I've joined this forum.. I have noticed a difference of opinion that is this.

Atheism seems be defined as one of the following:
1. An Atheist does not believe in a god.
2. An Atheist believes that there is no god.

The first suggests that there is no evidence there of, and so no belief is demanded. The latter suggest a proof be provided to say that there is no god at all. both of these definitions can be found in reputable sources, however, they are indeed fundamentally different.

I am an Atheist and I choose the first definition. So I am curious to see what the majority preference is from others. I have a theory that most Atheists would chose the first, and most believers would choose the second... let's find out. Please answer the poll honestly based on the provided criteria...

(I use a lower case "g" for god because an Atheist does not simply not believe in your God, but we don't believe in ANY god.)

hey RedJamaX,

how i see it, the human species conjured up this idea called "god"all by their lonesome selves.
we are just perpetuating what we were taught since we were children
so all of it ultimately comes from us, via our traditions and the justified morals we set for ourselves (depending on the type of culture we live in).
to me, atheism is coming to terms that the labels theists have invented for the unknown is really unfounded ...
and the attempt to label something unknown because we have labeled it unknown is rather futile. there is nothing there that we can detect in the natural world. and the last time i checked, my life revolves around the natural world of non fiction, not by unfounded superstitious ideas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can someone be both a liberal and a conservative at once? I'd say that's an easy thing to do. So I think a person can also be a theist and an atheist (and neither) at once.

How, exactly?

 

[waitasec]

Can someone be both a liberal and a conservative at once? I'd say that's an easy thing to do. So I think a person can also be a theist and an atheist (and neither) at once.

How, exactly?

if an atheist professes to know what the idea of "god" means?

 

[Falvlun]

The whole "are babies atheists?" question is one extreme case of a question that has much wider application: how much thought does a person have to put into the idea of gods before we can call them an atheist?

Personally, I go with "no thought at all". I think it's a lot more reasonable than the other end of the scale ("a person has to consider every single god-concept and come to the conclusion for each of them that it does not exist"), and any point in between is going to be arbitrary by necessity.

To be clear, that is a misunderstanding of my position.

I have never held that you have to consider every single god concept. That has been a continual mischaracterization, despite repeatedly pointing out that that is not the case.

I believe that people have a general concept of what the word "god" means. If they do not think that anything exists which can be classified as a god, then that is what makes them an atheist. Yes, it involves a cognitive understanding of the word "god", and a personal choice, or opinion, or awareness, that you don't believe in the existence of anything within that category.

Edit: I don't think the term "atheist" is particularly useful when describing anyone. Nevertheless, the term exists and we can ask about how we should use it.

Is it perhaps "not useful" because of the way you have chosen to define it? I agree with that. Your definition makes it particularly meaningless. That is one of the reasons I am not a fan of it.

 

[Willamena]

if an atheist professes to know what the idea of "god" means?

That's about the size of it.

 

[Falvlun]

Have you addressed my contention that equating the "lack of belief" a baby has with the "lack of belief" you claim adult atheists have is an equivocation?

Yes, I did address it: I dismissed it as an unsupported (and somewhat baffling) assertion. If you want me to consider it, you'll have to give an argument for why it's correct.

This was my argument:

That's a good point, and I think points to the equivocation I was talking about early.

In the case of the infants, it could very well be considered "nothing".

But in the case of most people who have thought about it, it is very much a "something".

To say that both the nothing and the something are the exact same thing is misleading, and points to a problem with the definition de jure of atheism.

To elaborate: Do you really think that "having no concept of what the word "god' means, and having absolutely no opinion about it" should be considered equivalent to "I have not been convinced of the arguments in favor of any gods existing, so I choose not to believe that any do"?

 

[Warren Clark]

I agree. I think the "lack of belief" definition is partly a backlash from debates with theists.

But I think it equally incorrect to pretend like there is no belief at all involved in atheism, just to avoid the incorrect theist assertion that a belief implies faith. Why not simply educate about what belief is, and how all beliefs are not created equal?

true. its like the "its just a theory" assertion. We shouldn't change the word theory out just because people don't understand what it means.
Just so, we shouldn't change the definition of Atheism.
But I still believe that Atheism generally is the "lack of belief".
In my mind, an infant is an Atheist. It can't make a conscious decision so its lack of conscious belief makes it an Atheist.
People don't become theists until they self proclaim they believe (or "know") there is a God.

 

[Falvlun]

That wouldn't be the set of properties that I would use to define "dog". I would say something like "an animal of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris" or, since I know that the dividing line between subspecies can be blurry sometimes, maybe something like "an animal of the species Canis lupus that is descended from a lineage that was domesticated by humans for centuries."

... and if you need to, we can unpack words I used like "animal" and "species", which can be defined by similarly precise, accurate properties.[/I]

It's interesting that you chose "species" and "animal" specifically as your example. Because biologists actually do have a hard time creating a definition for both that would meet your standards of both a) including everything that should be included and b) excluding things that shouldn't be included. There's irritating exceptions that confound both definitions.

Now, science in general does have a better track record of definitions that meet your requirements. But language in general doesn't. Your definition for "trolls" didn't stack up and "fairies" and "elves" will suffer from the same deficiencies. What is love? (Baby don't hurt me! )

EDIT:
It also just dawned on me that your definition for dog is rather circular, and not very informative. "Canis lupis" is a synonym for the word "dog". So a dog is an animal of the species dog that is descended..." Define Canis lupis. I do think that it can be done, but it would certainly be more tricky than your previous definition.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How, exactly?

How can someone be both liberal and conservative at the same time? Or atheist and theist at the same time?

I guess I'd be happier to hear you explain how it couldn't be possible, since I can't imagine the impossibility of it. It's as if you've asked me how a guy can be both generous and greedy at once. Well, he can be both because neither of those things are objectively real. There's no such thing as a GreedyGuy who cannot also and simultaneously be a GenerousGuy. Those labels are just some individual's opinion about the guy. I might think him greedy. You might think him generous. If half the world calls him one thing and half the world calls him the other, which is he?

Well, he's both. And neither. They're just personal opinions about the guy, expressed in human words. Same with atheists/theists.

And of course, he gets his own opinion. If he's like me, he might declare that he is neither theist nor atheist. The concepts don't even make sense to me. Plus, I can believe in God and disbelieve in God simultaneously. It's easy because 'God' has no particular, set meaning for me -- and because I'm not at all sure what the event called 'believing' is, exactly. Do I believe that Obama is gonna win? Well, I kinda sorta believe it but I kinda sorta don't. That's the same way I feel about 'God's existence' except way loosey-goosier.

Could you explain your reasoning for a stance that I have to be either a theist or an atheist and cannot be both? I'd also be curious to hear why I can't be a conservative and a liberal at once, if that's what you believe.

 

[Magic Man]

And of course, he gets his own opinion. If he's like me, he might declare that he is neither theist nor atheist.

Which is impossible, unless you use "one who rejects God's existence" as the definition of atheist.

The concepts don't even make sense to me.

What doesn't make sense? There is an idea called God. Some people believe God exists; some don't. Those who believe it exists are called theists; those who don't believe it exists are called atheists. Think of it like a unicorn.

Plus, I can believe in God and disbelieve in God simultaneously. It's easy because 'God' has no particular, set meaning for me -- and because I'm not at all sure what the event called 'believing' is, exactly. Do I believe that Obama is gonna win? Well, I kinda sorta believe it but I kinda sorta don't. That's the same way I feel about 'God's existence' except way loosey-goosier.

Now this doesn't make sense. As I said above, God is an idea, like a unicorn. You either believe God exists or you don't. You can't simultaneously believe something exists and not believe it exists.

Could you explain your reasoning for a stance that I have to be either a theist or an atheist and cannot be both? I'd also be curious to hear why I can't be a conservative and a liberal at once, if that's what you believe.

Of course I'm not Penguin, and he can answer for himself, but here's my take. A theist holds the belief "God exists". An atheist does not hold that belief. Being both a theist and atheist would be like a box both containing an apple and being empty at the same time.

Conservatism and Liberalism are opposing ideologies, so it works similarly. You can't be both against same-sex marriage and for it, and against welfare and for it, and against tax cuts for the rich and for them, etc. Now, you can be for some of the conservative options and come of the liberal ones. If you are a mix of the two, though, you're not both a conservative and a liberal; you're a mix. You'd be more of a centrist or independent.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Which is impossible, unless you use "one who rejects God's existence" as the definition of atheist.

I have no favorite definition for atheist, just as I have no favorite color.

Same with 'Christian' or 'Jew' or any other philosophical/theological categories. I wouldn't waste my time trying to construct simple definitions for them. Nothing under 10,000 words or so anyway. Even then I wouldn't believe that my definitions should hold for everyone else.

What doesn't make sense? There is an idea called God. Some people believe God exists; some don't. Those who believe it exists are called theists; those who don't believe it exists are called atheists. Think of it like a unicorn.

A unicorn is a usually-white horse with a single, longish horn in his forehead.

Can you tell me what God is?

Now this doesn't make sense. As I said above, God is an idea, like a unicorn. You either believe God exists or you don't. You can't simultaneously believe something exists and not believe it exists.

I don't want to offend you, but I haven't thought in such simple ways about God in very many years.

Of course I'm not Penguin, and he can answer for himself, but here's my take. A theist holds the belief "God exists". An atheist does not hold that belief. Being both a theist and atheist would be like a box both containing an apple and being empty at the same time.

What does it mean to 'hold a belief' in something? Must I be 100% certain that 'God' (whatever 'God' might be) exists in physical form in order to 'hold a belief in God's existence'? And what would I be believing in?

If I conceive of God as 'human curiousity', and I believe in that, does it make me a theist or an atheist?

Conservatism and Liberalism are opposing ideologies, so it works similarly. You can't be both against same-sex marriage and for it, and against welfare and for it, and against tax cuts for the rich and for them, etc. Now, you can be for some of the conservative options and come of the liberal ones. If you are a mix of the two, though, you're not both a conservative and a liberal; you're a mix. You'd be more of a centrist or independent.

You seem to see a much simpler world than I do. I wish you didn't. There are lots of subtle shadings between red and blue.

 

[Magic Man]

I have no favorite definition for atheist, just as I have no favorite color.

Same with 'Christian' or 'Jew' or any other philosophical/theological categories. I wouldn't waste my time trying to construct simple definitions for them. Nothing under 10,000 words or so anyway. Even then I wouldn't believe that my definitions should hold for everyone else.

Except that "Theist" and "Atheist" are simple concepts, unlike the other ones you mention. They do not have all of the intricacies. It's either "believe in God" or "not believe in God".

A unicorn is a usually-white horse with a single, longish horn in his forehead.

Can you tell me what God is?

Sure, it's an intelligent being that created the universe, is present in it and intercedes in human affairs.

I don't want to offend you, but I haven't thought in such simple ways about God in very many years.

No offense taken. If you want to make it an exercise in futility, you're welcome to make God into some mystical jargon. But we're talking about the normal conception of God, which I defined simply above.

What does it mean to 'hold a belief' in something? Must I be 100% certain that 'God' (whatever 'God' might be) exists in physical form in order to 'hold a belief in God's existence'? And what would I be believing in?

I'll defer to dictionary.com:

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

That's the definition of "believe".

If I conceive of God as 'human curiousity', and I believe in that, does it make me a theist or an atheist?

It doesn't make you either. What makes you an atheist or theist is whether you believe in an all-powerful intelligent being that created the universe and is intimately involved with its working and humans' lives.

You seem to see a much simpler world than I do. I wish you didn't. There are lots of subtle shadings between red and blue.

You seem to live in an overly complex world that only serves to make you feel like you're being profound. Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies which have views. There are shadings in between them, but then you wouldn't be both things. If you're a shade in the middle, then you're not both a conservative and a liberal; you're a mix of the two.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except that "Theist" and "Atheist" are simple concepts, unlike the other ones you mention. They do not have all of the intricacies. It's either "believe in God" or "not believe in God".

Some people like things simple. Others, not so much.

Sure, it's an intelligent being that created the universe, is present in it and intercedes in human affairs.

That's God? Wow, I finally have my Answer!

Anyway, to me it sounds like you've swallowed the predominant definition from your own culture as 'the' definition of God. In other words, you don't seem the least interested in God. But I am. And my God is quite a bit more textured than the simplistic definition of 'That Guy in the Bible.' I'll leave the Christian/Jew/Muslim opposers to call themselves atheists as they please.

No offense taken. If you want to make it an exercise in futility, you're welcome to make God into some mystical jargon. But we're talking about the normal conception of God, which I defined simply above.

I have very little interest in normal thought. I don't enjoy bowling on the weekends either.

I'll defer to dictionary.com:

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

That's the definition of "believe".

If you believe in 'the definition' of words, well... OK. But I don't think you'll have much luck forcing me to hold to the most popular entry in your favorite dictionary.

It doesn't make you either. What makes you an atheist or theist is whether you believe in an all-powerful intelligent being that created the universe and is intimately involved with its working and humans' lives.

How funny that seems to me. You actually believe in word definitions. As if they stand there all alone in your favorite dictionary just waiting for you to come and take their photograph away with you, so you can know how they look.

You seem to live in an overly complex world that only serves to make you feel like you're being profound.

OK. You seem like you live in a simple world where you can make yourself believe that you're in control of things.

Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies which have views. There are shadings in between them, but then you wouldn't be both things. If you're a shade in the middle, then you're not both a conservative and a liberal; you're a mix of the two.

You've already told me that you get your defintions from a dictionary. I'm sorry, but I can't take your language lectures very seriously. I'll be happy to discuss it with you, though, if you'd like.

 

[Magic Man]

Some people like things simple. Others, not so much.

That's God? Wow, I finally have my Answer!

Anyway, to me it sounds like you've swallowed the predominant definition from your own culture as 'the' definition of God. In other words, you don't seem the least interested in God. But I am. And my God is quite a bit more textured than the simplistic definition of 'That Guy in the Bible.' I'll leave the Christian/Jew/Muslim opposers to call themselves atheists as they please.

I have very little interest in normal thought. I don't enjoy bowling on the weekends either.

If you believe in 'the definition' of words, well... OK. But I don't think you'll have much luck forcing me to hold to the most popular entry in your favorite dictionary.

How funny that seems to me. You actually believe in word definitions. As if they stand there all alone in your favorite dictionary just waiting for you to come and take their photograph away with you, so you can know how they look.

OK. You seem like you live in a simple world where you can make yourself believe that you're in control of things.

You've already told me that you get your defintions from a dictionary. I'm sorry, but I can't take your language lectures very seriously. I'll be happy to discuss it with you, though, if you'd like.

Well, there are two choices here:

1) You can continue to spout your deepities, pretend that you're wise and profound, and talk down to people, when in reality, it's a bunch of meaningless drivel.

2) You can drop this nonsense and have a real conversation.

If you choose option 2, I'd be happy to participate. If you choose option 1, find someone else who doesn't see your comments for the nonsense they are.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, there are two choices here:

1) You can continue to spout your deepities, pretend that you're wise and profound, and talk down to people, when in reality, it's a bunch of meaningless drivel.

2) You can drop this nonsense and have a real conversation.

If you choose option 2, I'd be happy to participate. If you choose option 1, find someone else who doesn't see your comments for the nonsense they are.

I would write you some insults in return but I'd really rather discuss atheism. Sorry. Nothing personal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

***MOD POST***​

Please keep things Civil​

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This was my argument:



To elaborate: Do you really think that "having no concept of what the word "god' means, and having absolutely no opinion about it" should be considered equivalent to "I have not been convinced of the arguments in favor of any gods existing, so I choose not to believe that any do"?

Hang on one minute:

- are you now saying that self-awareness of one's atheism is necessary to be an theist?

- I disagree with something you just added: I don't think that beliefs are chosen.

Those points aside, it depends entirely on what you mean by "the arguments". Is it some predefined set of arguments (if so, which?) or merely the arguments that the person has heard so far?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be clear, that is a misunderstanding of my position.

It wasn't meant to be a characterization of your position at all. The one end of the spectrum I gave was based on what I thought might be the most extreme position a person could take on how "atheist" is defined.

Is it perhaps "not useful" because of the way you have chosen to define it? I agree with that. Your definition makes it particularly meaningless. That is one of the reasons I am not a fan of it.

I think it's rather meaningless either way. What we're arguing over is analogous to arguing whether we should have a "we don't collect stamps" club or a "we don't collect stamps because we don't like them" club. Either way, there's very little common ground among the members, and the purpose of the club doesn't really suggest what we should do during meetings.

Edit: when I want to give a useful description of what I am, I use terms like "skeptic", "freethinker", or "humanist". While I am an atheist by either your definition or mine (I think - I don't think I have a coherent concept of God, so if that's a prerequisite for yours, then maybe I'm not), either way, you learn more about me by finding out what I am rather than what I'm not.

 

[NIX]

I'm going to try a couple myself.

Atheist= A person who (at present) is not personally jazzed or compelled by any god concepts they have heard of or considered to date.

Atheist= A person who finds no reason to make use of/personally engage in any god concepts (they know of, or have thought of to date).

 

[Falvlun]

Hang on one minute:

- are you now saying that self-awareness of one's atheism is necessary to be an theist?

Yeah, I think so. I think it's a position, an opinion. You may not know you have an opinion until someone draws attention to it, so I'm not going to discount that possibility, but in general, I think it is a cognitive, conscious position.

- I disagree with something you just added: I don't think that beliefs are chosen.

Whichever. I don't think we need to add a freewill duel on top of this. We, at the very least, have an illusion of freewill, and you can take the concept of "choose" in that sort of spirit.

Those points aside, it depends entirely on what you mean by "the arguments". Is it some predefined set of arguments (if so, which?) or merely the arguments that the person has heard so far?

Neither. I just mean that you haven't been convinced to believe that god exists. (And to prevent another round of Gargles, with the caveats that you are aware of what is being talked about and that you have the conscious ability to hold the opinion that you don't believe that anything in that category exists.)